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 .
Claims 1-74 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1).
Examiner’s Note: When referring to a claim of the present application, the term “present” will be used. For example, Claim 1 of the present application will be referred to as “present Claim 1”.
Claim 1 of the present application is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980, which will now be referred to as Patent ‘980, except one difference is that present Claim 1 recites “adjusts travel”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that reducing speed as in Claim 12 of Patent ‘980 is equivalent to adjusting “travel”. Another difference is that present Claim 1 recites “a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns”.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Wang et al., and to provide a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]).
Claim 2 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 3 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 4 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 5 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 6 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 7 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 8 is fully encompassed by Claim 3 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 9 is fully encompassed by Claim 3 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 10 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 11 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 12 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 13 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 14 is rendered obvious by Claims 1 and 2 of Patent ‘980, where a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to interpret a “current traction” of a vehicle as being equivalent to a “condition that affects the ability to control deceleration of the vehicle”, as clearly control of deceleration may be dependent on a current traction.
Claim 15 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 16 is fully encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 17 is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 15 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 18 is fully encompassed by Claim 11 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 21 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 22 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 23 is fully encompassed by Claim 14 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 24 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 25 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 27 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 28 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 29 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 31 is fully encompassed by Claim 15 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Claim 19 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 recites attentiveness but does not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of MCNEW, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claims 20 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 20 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 15 of Patent ‘980 recites “an image processor operable to process image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1, 12 and 15 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claim 30 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 15 of Patent ‘980 recites “an image processor operable to process image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1, 12 and 15 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A).
Claim 26 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 recites “generates an alert” and “attentiveness”, but does not recite adjusting the “time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle”.
However, Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A) teaches providing an alert earlier as a driver’s attention level becomes smaller (Ihara et al.; see P[0007]-P[0008], P[0011], P[0032], P[0060] and P[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Ihara et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Ihara et al., in order to provide “a vehicle collision damage mitigation device that can avoid situations in which driver confusion and vehicle behavior become unstable, even on various roads and in various driving conditions” (Ihara et al.; see P[0006]).
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509).
Claim 32 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 recites “attentiveness”, but does not specify that “the driver is impaired”.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, where when the prescribed value is increased, this would lead to a change in timing of when the warning is generated and lead to generating the warning at an "earlier time", in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Claim 33 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 recites “attentiveness”, but does not specify that “the driver is impaired”.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, where when the prescribed value is increased, this would lead to a change in timing of when the warning is generated and lead to generating the warning at an "earlier time", in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1).
Claim 34 of the present application is fully encompassed by Claims 1, 11 and 12 of Patent ‘980, except one difference is that present Claim 1 recites “adjusts travel”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that reducing speed as in Claim 12 of Patent ‘980 is equivalent to adjusting “travel”. Another difference is that present Claim 1 recites “a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns”.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Wang et al., and to provide a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]).
Claim 35 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 36 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 37 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 39 is fully encompassed by Claim 11 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 40 is fully encompassed by Claim 11 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 41 is fully encompassed by Claim 11 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 43 is fully encompassed by Claim 14 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 44 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 46 is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 15 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 47 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 48 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 49 is fully encompassed by Claim 3 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 50 is fully encompassed by Claim 3 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 51 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 52 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 53 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 54 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 55 is rendered obvious by Claims 1 and 2 of Patent ‘980, where a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to interpret a “current traction” of a vehicle as being equivalent to a “condition that affects the ability to control deceleration of the vehicle”, as clearly control of deceleration may be dependent on a current traction.
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 38 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 15 of Patent ‘980 recites “an image processor operable to process image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755), further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Claim 42 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 recites attentiveness but does not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of MCNEW, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claim 45 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755), further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A).
Claim 45 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 recites an alert but does not recite “adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle”.
However, Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A) teaches providing an alert earlier as a driver’s attention level becomes smaller (Ihara et al.; see P[0007]-P[0008], P[0011], P[0032], P[0060] and P[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Ihara et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Ihara et al., in order to “a vehicle collision damage mitigation device that can avoid situations in which driver confusion and vehicle behavior become unstable, even on various roads and in various driving conditions” (Ihara et al.; see P[0006]).
Claim 56 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Claim 56 of the present application is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘980, except one difference is that present Claim 1 recites “adjusts travel”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that reducing speed as in Claim 12 of Patent ‘980 is equivalent to adjusting “travel”. Another difference is that present Claim 56 recites “a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns”.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Another difference is that Claim 56 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 recites attentiveness but does not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Wang et al. and MCNEW, and to provide a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]), and in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claim 57 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 58 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 60 is fully encompassed by Claim 14 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 61 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 64 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 65 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 66 is fully encompassed by Claim 3 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 67 is fully encompassed by Claim 3 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 68 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 69 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 70 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 71 is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 15 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 72 is fully encompassed by Claim 11 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 73 is fully encompassed by Claim 11 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 74 is fully encompassed by Claim 11 of Patent ‘980.
Claim 59 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 59 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 15 of Patent ‘980 recites “an image processor operable to process image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claims 62 and 63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,925,980 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755), further in view of Minemura et al. (2014/0324330).
Regarding Claim 62 of the present application, Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 does not recite a “cyclist”, however, Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) teaches recognizing a target object of a bicycle (Minemura et al.; “…a bicycle…”, see P[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Minemura et al., and wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a cyclist, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to perform recognition of a target object and in order to perform a “collision mitigation process” (Minemura et al.; see P[0029]-P[0030]).
Regarding Claim 63 of the present application, Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 does not recite a “motorcyclist”, however, Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) teaches recognizing a target object of a motorcycle (Minemura et al.; “…a motorcycle…”, see P[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘980 with the teachings of Minemura et al., and wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a motorcyclist, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to perform recognition of a target object and in order to perform a “collision mitigation process” (Minemura et al.; see P[0029]-P[0030]).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1).
Claim 1 of the present application is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432, which will now be referred to as Patent ‘432, except one difference is that present Claim 1 recites “adjusts travel” rather than “adjusts the speed”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that adjusting speed is equivalent to adjusting “travel”. Another difference is that present Claim 1 recites “a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns”.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Wang et al., and to provide a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]).
Claim 2 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 3 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 4 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 5 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 6 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 7 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 8 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 9 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 10 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 11 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 12 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 13 is fully encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 14 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 15 is fully encompassed by Claim 10 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 16 is fully encompassed by Claim 11 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 17 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 18 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 21 is fully encompassed by Claim 14 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 22 is fully encompassed by Claim 15 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 23 is fully encompassed by Claim 16 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 24 is fully encompassed by Claim 18 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 25 is fully encompassed by Claim 19 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 27 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 28 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 29 is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 2 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 31 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Claim 19 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘432 recite attentiveness but do not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of MCNEW, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claims 20 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 20 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 recites “processing of image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claim 30 of the present application is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432, except for the limitation recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, where Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 recites “processing of image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A).
Claim 26 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 19 of Patent ‘432 recites “adjusts the time at which to generate the alert responsive to the driving condition of the vehicle”, but does not specify that the “driving condition” is an attentiveness.
However, Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A) teaches providing an alert earlier as a driver’s attention level becomes smaller (Ihara et al.; see P[0007]-P[0008], P[0011], P[0032], P[0060] and P[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 19 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Ihara et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Ihara et al., in order to provide “a vehicle collision damage mitigation device that can avoid situations in which driver confusion and vehicle behavior become unstable, even on various roads and in various driving conditions” (Ihara et al.; see P[0006]).
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509).
Claim 32 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired”, while Claim 12 of Patent ‘432 recites “adjusts the speed of the vehicle to adjust the time for the vehicle to reach where the projected path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the pedestrian based at least in part on a driver attentiveness parameter pertaining to a determined attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle”, but does not specify that “the driver is impaired”.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, where when the prescribed value is increased, this would lead to a change in timing of when the warning is generated and lead to generating the warning at an "earlier time", in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Claim 33 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk”, while Claim 12 of Patent ‘432 recites “adjusts the speed of the vehicle to adjust the time for the vehicle to reach where the projected path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the pedestrian based at least in part on a driver attentiveness parameter pertaining to a determined attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle”, but does not specify that “the driver is drunk”.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) renders obvious determining attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50), where clearly “any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired” may include when a driver is “drunk”, as it is common knowledge that intoxication can impair reaction time, therefore, the claim is an obvious variation of Kajiwara that could be achieved by simply labeling an impaired state of a driver, determined by the invention of Kajiwara as “drunk”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, where when the prescribed value is increased, this would lead to a change in timing of when the warning is generated and lead to generating the warning at an "earlier time", in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1).
Claim 34 of the present application is fully encompassed by Claims 1, 12 and 13 of Patent ‘432, except one difference is that present Claim 34 recites “adjusts travel” rather than “adjusts the speed”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that adjusting speed is equivalent to adjusting “travel”. Another difference is that present Claim 34 recites “a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns”.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Wang et al., and to provide a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]).
Claim 35 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 36 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 37 is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 2 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 39 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 40 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 41 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 43 is fully encompassed by Claim 18 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 44 is fully encompassed by Claim 19 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 46 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 47 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 48 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 49 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 50 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 51 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 52 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 53 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 54 is fully encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 55 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 38 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 recites “processing of image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Claim 42 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 12 of Patent ‘432 recites attentiveness but does not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of MCNEW, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claim 45 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 13 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A).
Claim 45 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 19 of Patent ‘432 recites “adjusts the time at which to generate the alert responsive to the driving condition of the vehicle”, but does not specify that the “driving condition” is an attentiveness.
However, Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A) teaches providing an alert earlier as a driver’s attention level becomes smaller (Ihara et al.; see P[0007]-P[0008], P[0011], P[0032], P[0060] and P[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1, 12, 13 and 19 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Ihara et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Ihara et al., in order to provide “a vehicle collision damage mitigation device that can avoid situations in which driver confusion and vehicle behavior become unstable, even on various roads and in various driving conditions” (Ihara et al.; see P[0006]).
Claim 56 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Claim 56 of the present application is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘432, except one difference is that present Claim 56 recites “adjusts travel” rather than “adjusts the speed”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that adjusting speed is equivalent to adjusting “travel”. Another difference is that present Claim 56 recites “a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns”.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Another difference is that Claim 56 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘432 recite attentiveness but do not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Wang et al. and MCNEW, and to provide a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]), and in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claim 57 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 58 is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 2 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 59 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 59 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 recites “processing of image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claim 60 is fully encompassed by Claim 16 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 61 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 64 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 65 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 66 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 67 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 68 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 69 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 70 is fully encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 71 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 72 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 73 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘432.
Claim 74 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘432.
Claims 62 and 63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,198,432 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Minemura et al. (2014/0324330).
Regarding Claim 62 of the present application, Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 does not recite a “cyclist”, however, Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) teaches recognizing a target object of a bicycle (Minemura et al.; “…a bicycle…”, see P[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Minemura et al., and wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a cyclist, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to perform recognition of a target object and in order to perform a “collision mitigation process” (Minemura et al.; see P[0029]-P[0030]).
Regarding Claim 63 of the present application, Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 does not recite a “motorcyclist”, however, Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) teaches recognizing a target object of a motorcycle (Minemura et al.; “…a motorcycle…”, see P[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Minemura et al., and wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a motorcyclist, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to perform recognition of a target object and in order to perform a “collision mitigation process” (Minemura et al.; see P[0029]-P[0030]).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,065 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1).
Claim 1 of the present application is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,065, which will now be referred to as Patent ‘065, except one difference is that present Claim 1 recites “adjusts travel” rather than “adjusts the speed”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that adjusting speed is equivalent to adjusting “travel”. Another difference is that present Claim 1 recites “a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns”.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 with the teachings of Wang et al., and to provide a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]).
Claim 2 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 3 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 4 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 5 is fully encompassed by Claim 8 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 6 is fully encompassed by Claim 2 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 7 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 8 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 9 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 10 is fully encompassed by Claim 6 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 11 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 12 is fully encompassed by Claim 8 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 13 is fully encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 14 is fully encompassed by Claim 10 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 15 is fully encompassed by Claim 11 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 16 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 17 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 18 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 21 is fully encompassed by Claim 14 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 22 is fully encompassed by Claim 15 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 23 is fully encompassed by Claim 16 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 24 is fully encompassed by Claim 18 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 25 is fully encompassed by Claim 19 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 26 is fully encompassed by Claim 20 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 27 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 28 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 29 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 31 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 35 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 36 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 37 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 39 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 40 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 41 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 43 is fully encompassed by Claim 16 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 44 is fully encompassed by Claim 19 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 45 is fully encompassed by Claim 20 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 46 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 47 is fully encompassed by Claim 2 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 48 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 49 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 50 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 51 is fully encompassed by Claim 6 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 52 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 53 is fully encompassed by Claim 8 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 54 is fully encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 55 is fully encompassed by Claim 10 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,065 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Claim 19 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 recites attentiveness but does not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 12 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of MCNEW, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claims 20 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,065 in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 20 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 17 of Patent ‘065 recites “process image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 17 of Patent ‘065 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claim 30 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 17 of Patent ‘065 recites “process image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 17 of Patent ‘065 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,065 in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509).
Claim 32 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 recites “adjusts the speed of the vehicle based at least in part on a driver attentiveness parameter pertaining to a determined attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle”, but does not specify that “the driver is impaired”.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, where when the prescribed value is increased, this would lead to a change in timing of when the warning is generated and lead to generating the warning at an "earlier time", in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Claim 33 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 recites “adjusts the speed of the vehicle based at least in part on a driver attentiveness parameter pertaining to a determined attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle”, but does not specify that “the driver is drunk”.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) renders obvious determining attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50), where clearly “any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired” may include when a driver is “drunk”, as it is common knowledge that intoxication can impair reaction time, therefore, the claim is an obvious variation of Kajiwara that could be achieved by simply labeling an impaired state of a driver, determined by the invention of Kajiwara as “drunk”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, where when the prescribed value is increased, this would lead to a change in timing of when the warning is generated and lead to generating the warning at an "earlier time", in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,065 in view of in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1).
Claim 34 of the present application is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 13 of Patent ‘065, except one difference is that present Claim 34 recites “adjusts travel” rather than “adjusts the speed”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that adjusting speed is equivalent to adjusting “travel”. Another difference is that present Claim 34 recites “a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns”.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 with the teachings of Wang et al., and to provide a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]).
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,065 in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 38 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 17 of Patent ‘065 recites “process image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 17 of Patent ‘065 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,065 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1).
Claim 42 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 recite attentiveness but do not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 17 of Patent ‘065 with the teachings of MCNEW, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claim 56 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,065 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Claim 56 of the present application is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 17 of Patent ‘065, except one difference is that present Claim 56 recites “adjusts travel” rather than “adjusts the speed”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that adjusting speed is equivalent to adjusting “travel”. Another difference is that present Claim 56 recites “a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns”.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Another difference is that Claim 56 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claims 1 and 17 of Patent ‘432 recite attentiveness but do not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 17 of Patent ‘432 with the teachings of Wang et al. and MCNEW, and to provide a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]), and in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claim 57 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 58 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 60 is fully encompassed by Claim 16 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 61 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 64 is fully encompassed by Claim 2 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 65 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 66 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 67 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 68 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 69 is fully encompassed by Claim 8 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 70 is fully encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 71 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 72 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 73 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 74 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘065.
Claim 59 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,065 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 59 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 17 of Patent ‘065 recites “process image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 1 and 17 of Patent ‘065 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claims 62 and 63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,572,065 in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Minemura et al. (2014/0324330).
Regarding Claim 62 of the present application, Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 does not recite a “cyclist”, however, Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) teaches recognizing a target object of a bicycle (Minemura et al.; “…a bicycle…”, see P[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 with the teachings of Minemura et al., and wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a cyclist, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to perform recognition of a target object and in order to perform a “collision mitigation process” (Minemura et al.; see P[0029]-P[0030]).
Regarding Claim 63 of the present application, Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 does not recite a “motorcyclist”, however, Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) teaches recognizing a target object of a motorcycle (Minemura et al.; “…a motorcycle…”, see P[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘065 with the teachings of Minemura et al., and wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a motorcyclist, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to perform recognition of a target object and in order to perform a “collision mitigation process” (Minemura et al.; see P[0029]-P[0030]).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402, which will now also be referred to as Patent ‘402. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because one difference is that present Claim 1 recites “adjusts travel” rather than “adjusts control”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that adjusting control of a vehicle to prevent a pedestrian from being in the forward path of the vehicle is equivalent to adjusting “travel” of the vehicle.
Claim 2 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 3 is fully encompassed by Claim 24 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 4 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 5 is fully encompassed by Claim 8 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 6 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 7 is fully encompassed by Claim 3 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 8 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 9 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 10 is fully encompassed by Claim 6 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 11 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 12 is fully encompassed by Claim 8 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 13 is fully encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 14 is fully encompassed by Claim 10 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 15 is fully encompassed by Claim 11 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 16 is fully encompassed by Claim 12 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 17 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 18 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 21 is fully encompassed by Claim 14 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 22 is fully encompassed by Claim 15 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 23 is fully encompassed by Claim 16 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 24 is fully encompassed by Claim 17 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 25 is fully encompassed by Claim 18 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 26 is fully encompassed by Claim 19 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 27 is fully encompassed by Claim 20 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 28 is fully encompassed by Claim 21 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 29 is fully encompassed by Claim 22 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 31 is fully encompassed by Claims 1 and 24 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402 in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Claim 19 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 recites attentiveness but does not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 with the teachings of MCNEW, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402 in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 20 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 recites “an image processor that processes image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402 in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 30 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 recites “an image processor that processes image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402 in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509).
Claim 32 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 recites “attentiveness”, but does not specify that “the driver is impaired”.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, where when the prescribed value is increased, this would lead to a change in timing of when the warning is generated and lead to generating the warning at an "earlier time", in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Claim 33 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 recites “attentiveness”, but does not specify that “the driver is drunk”.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) renders obvious determining attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50), where clearly “any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired” may include when a driver is “drunk”, as it is common knowledge that intoxication can impair reaction time, therefore, the claim is an obvious variation of Kajiwara that could be achieved by simply labeling an impaired state of a driver, determined by the invention of Kajiwara as “drunk”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, where when the prescribed value is increased, this would lead to a change in timing of when the warning is generated and lead to generating the warning at an "earlier time", in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because one difference is that present Claim 1 recites “adjusts travel” rather than “adjusts control”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that adjusting control of a vehicle to prevent a pedestrian from being in the forward path of the vehicle is equivalent to adjusting “travel” of the vehicle.
Claim 35 is fully encompassed by Claim 20 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 36 is fully encompassed by Claim 21 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 37 is fully encompassed by Claim 22 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 39 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 40 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 41 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 43 is fully encompassed by Claim 16 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 44 is fully encompassed by Claim 18 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 45 is fully encompassed by Claim 19 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 46 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 47 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 48 is fully encompassed by Claim 3 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 49 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 50 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 51 is fully encompassed by Claim 6 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 52 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 53 is fully encompassed by Claim 8 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 54 is fully encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 55 is fully encompassed by Claim 10 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402 in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 38 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 recites “an image processor that processes image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402 in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Claim 42 of the present application recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 recites “attentiveness” but does not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 with the teachings of MCNEW, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claim 56 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402 in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Claim 56 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because one difference is that present Claim 1 recites “adjusts travel” rather than “adjusts control”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that adjusting control of a vehicle to prevent a pedestrian from being in the forward path of the vehicle is equivalent to adjusting “travel” of the vehicle. Another difference is that present Claim 56 recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 recites “attentiveness” but does not recite “tracking an eye”.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 with the teachings of MCNEW, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claim 57 is fully encompassed by Claim 20 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 58 is fully encompassed by Claim 22 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 60 is fully encompassed by Claim 16 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 61 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 64 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 65 is fully encompassed by Claim 3 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 66 is fully encompassed by Claim 4 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 67 is fully encompassed by Claim 5 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 68 is fully encompassed by Claim 7 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 69 is fully encompassed by Claim 8 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 70 is fully encompassed by Claim 9 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 71 is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 72 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 73 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 74 is fully encompassed by Claim 13 of Patent ‘402.
Claim 59 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402 in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175) further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Claim 59 of the present application recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip”, while Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 recites “an image processor that processes image data” but does not recite an “image processing chip”.
However, Weller et al. (7,855,755) teaches an image processing chip (Weller et al.; see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 with the teachings of Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Claims 62 and 63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,787,402 in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175) further in view of Minemura et al. (2014/0324330).
Regarding Claim 62 of the present application, Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 does not recite a “cyclist”, however, Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) teaches recognizing a target object of a bicycle (Minemura et al.; “…a bicycle…”, see P[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 with the teachings of Minemura et al., and wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a cyclist, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to perform recognition of a target object and in order to perform a “collision mitigation process” (Minemura et al.; see P[0029]-P[0030]).
Regarding Claim 63 of the present application, Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 does not recite a “motorcyclist”, however, Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) teaches recognizing a target object of a motorcycle (Minemura et al.; “…a motorcycle…”, see P[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of Patent ‘402 with the teachings of Minemura et al., and wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a motorcyclist, as rendered obvious by Weller et al., in order to perform recognition of a target object and in order to perform a “collision mitigation process” (Minemura et al.; see P[0029]-P[0030]).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system”, which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “determines distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU)” and lines 7-8 recites “based on distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU)”, and the grammar is improper for each instance of “distance”, as there is no article preceding each instance of “distance”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3 recite “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3 recite “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “responsive at least in part to prediction” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “responsive to prediction” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “responsive to prediction” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “responsive to prediction” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2 recite “responsive to determination” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “determination”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2 recite “responsive to prediction” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites “determines distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU)” and lines 8-9 recites “based on distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU)”, and the grammar is improper for each instance of “distance”, as there is no article preceding each instance of “distance”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 22 recites “responsive at least in part to prediction” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2 recite “responsive to prediction” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2 recite “responsive to determination” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “determination”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 47 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “responsive at least in part to prediction” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 56 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 23 recites “responsive at least in part to prediction” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 58 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2 recite “responsive to prediction” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 60 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2 recite “responsive to determination” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “determination”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 64 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “responsive at least in part to prediction” which is improper grammar, as no article precedes “prediction”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8, 9, 16, 18, 34-55, 66, 67 and 74 are 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.
As per Claim 8, the subject matter is the claimed “wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of…(ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature”.
There is no disclosure of any algorithm that describes how a “vehicle load” is measured and given a value, and there is not disclosure of any system or structure capable of or used to measure a “vehicle load”. Furthermore, there is no disclosure of any algorithm that describes how a “brake temperature” is measured and given a value, and there is no disclosure of any system or structure capable of or used to measure a “brake temperature”.
The Examiner notes that while “pertains” does not require actually defining the “driving condition” to be a value of a measured “vehicle load” or a value of a measured “brake temperature”, the claim does encompass an interpretation that includes defining a “driving condition” based on a value of a “vehicle load” or a value of a “brake temperature”, and there is no algorithm describing how to measure and give a value to a “vehicle load” or to a “brake temperature”, and this interpretation of the claim is then not supported by the disclosure.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of the vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 6, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire pressure, (ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature.
As per Claim 9, the subject matter is the claimed “wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip”.
There is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to measure the “tire wear” and give the “tire wear” a value, there is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to measure the “tire age” and give the “tire age” a value, and there is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to measure the “brake wear” and give the “brake wear” a value.
The terms “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” are not terms that have only one meaning, and each of “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” may be defined, inferred, and/or measured in a variety of ways, and the present application fails to recite even a single algorithm or any structure for measuring and giving a value to each of a “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear”.
The Examiner notes that while “pertains” does not require actually defining the “driving condition” to be a value of a measured “tire wear”, “tire age” or “brake wear”, the claim does encompass an interpretation that includes defining a “driving condition” based on a value of a “tire wear”, “tire age” or “brake wear”, and there is no algorithm describing how to measure and give a value to a “tire wear”, “tire age” or “brake wear”, and this interpretation of the claim is then not supported by the disclosure.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of the vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 6, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip.
As per Claim 16, the subject matter is the claimed “wherein the location and time parameter includes at least one selected from the group consisting of…(iv) a fire alert in a building near to the current geographical location of the vehicle”.
There is no disclosure of an algorithm describing how data of a “fire alert in a building near to the current geographical location of the vehicle” is obtained, or of the structure required to obtain such data.
P[0035] of the specification recites “Fire alert in a building close by (exceptional event and position)” and P[0036] recites “There may be off line data involved such as the map information or the bus schedule as well as online data such as the fire alert event” as the sole support for this claimed subject matter, however, no algorithm is disclosed which describes for how “online data such as the fire alert event” is obtained in the first place and by what structure. Instead, the specification merely recites the use of “online data” of a “fire alert event”, which does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, as clearly some type of process must be performed to create the “online data” of a “fire alert event” before it can be used.
Furthermore, it is the Examiner’s position that it is not universally known how “online data” of a “fire alert event” can be obtained and by what structure, and that to show possession of an invention that uses “online data” of a “fire alert event” as claimed, a specific algorithm and specific structure for obtaining “online data” of a “fire alert event” must be disclosed, which the present application fails to do.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of the vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 15, wherein the location and time parameter includes at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) the vehicle being close to a stadium when an event just ended, (ii) the vehicle being close to a bus stop with the bus scheduled at that time, (iii) the vehicle approaching a traffic jam that is at a full stop at that time and (iv) a fire alert in a building near to the current geographical location of the vehicle.
As per Claim 18, the subject matter is the claimed “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining at least one selected from the group consisting of…(iii) use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”.
There is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to determine “use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”.
P[0037] of the specification recites “Driver is on a cellphone (hands free / not hands free)” as the sole support for this claimed subject matter, however, there is no disclosure of any structure capable of determining “hands free” or “not hands free” events. Furthermore, there is no disclosure of any algorithm describing exactly what data is used to determine “use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”, or to determine “hands free” or “not hands free” events.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of the vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle, (ii) volume of music in the vehicle and (iii) use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle.
As per Claim 34, the subject matter is the claimed “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining at least one selected from the group consisting of…(iii) use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”.
There is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to determine “use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”.
P[0037] of the specification recites “Driver is on a cellphone (hands free / not hands free)” as the sole support for this claimed subject matter, however, there is no disclosure of any structure capable of determining “hands free” or “not hands free” events. Furthermore, there is no disclosure of any algorithm describing exactly what data is used to determine “use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”, or to determine “hands free” or “not hands free” events.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of a vehicular collision avoidance system, the vehicular collision avoidance system comprising: a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle; wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns; an image processor that processes image data captured by the forward-viewing camera to detect a vulnerable road user (VRU) who is present ahead of the vehicle and is outside of a forward path of travel of the vehicle; wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a pedestrian; wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera, determines a projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) based on movement of the vulnerable road user (VRU); wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, based at least in part on current speed of the vehicle, determines a vehicle time to intersection, and wherein the vehicle time to intersection is the time needed for the vehicle to reach where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) based on the vehicle continuing to move along its forward path of travel at the current speed of the vehicle; wherein, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will not be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU); wherein adjustment of travel of the vehicle is at least in part based on attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle; and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle, (ii) volume of music in the vehicle and (iii) use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle.
As per Claim 41, the subject matter is the claimed “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”.
There is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to determine “use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”.
P[0037] of the specification recites “Driver is on a cellphone (hands free / not hands free)” as the sole support for this claimed subject matter, however, there is no disclosure of any structure capable of determining “hands free” or “not hands free” events. Furthermore, there is no disclosure of any algorithm describing exactly what data is used to determine “use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”, or to determine “hands free” or “not hands free” events.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of the vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 38, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle.
As per Claim 49, the subject matter is the claimed “wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of…(ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature”.
There is no disclosure of any algorithm that describes how a “vehicle load” is measured and given a value, and there is not disclosure of any system or structure capable of or used to measure a “vehicle load”. Furthermore, there is no disclosure of any algorithm that describes how a “brake temperature” is measured and given a value, and there is no disclosure of any system or structure capable of or used to measure a “brake temperature”.
The Examiner notes that while “pertains” does not require actually defining the “driving condition” to be a value of a measured “vehicle load” or a value of a measured “brake temperature”, the claim does encompass an interpretation that includes defining a “driving condition” based on a value of a “vehicle load” or a value of a “brake temperature”, and there is no algorithm describing how to measure and give a value to a “vehicle load” or to a “brake temperature”, and this interpretation of the claim is then not supported by the disclosure.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of the vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 47, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire pressure, (ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature.
As per Claim 50, the subject matter is the claimed “wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip”.
There is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to measure the “tire wear” and give the “tire wear” a value, there is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to measure the “tire age” and give the “tire age” a value, and there is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to measure the “brake wear” and give the “brake wear” a value.
The terms “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” are not terms that have only one meaning, and each of “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” may be defined, inferred, and/or measured in a variety of ways, and the present application fails to recite even a single algorithm or any structure for measuring and giving a value to each of a “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear”.
The Examiner notes that while “pertains” does not require actually defining the “driving condition” to be a value of a measured “tire wear”, “tire age” or “brake wear”, the claim does encompass an interpretation that includes defining a “driving condition” based on a value of a “tire wear”, “tire age” or “brake wear”, and there is no algorithm describing how to measure and give a value to a “tire wear”, “tire age” or “brake wear”, and this interpretation of the claim is then not supported by the disclosure.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of the vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 47, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip.
As per Claim 66, the subject matter is the claimed “wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of…(ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature”.
There is no disclosure of any algorithm that describes how a “vehicle load” is measured and given a value, and there is not disclosure of any system or structure capable of or used to measure a “vehicle load”. Furthermore, there is no disclosure of any algorithm that describes how a “brake temperature” is measured and given a value, and there is no disclosure of any system or structure capable of or used to measure a “brake temperature”.
The Examiner notes that while “pertains” does not require actually defining the “driving condition” to be a value of a measured “vehicle load” or a value of a measured “brake temperature”, the claim does encompass an interpretation that includes defining a “driving condition” based on a value of a “vehicle load” or a value of a “brake temperature”, and there is no algorithm describing how to measure and give a value to a “vehicle load” or to a “brake temperature”, and this interpretation of the claim is then not supported by the disclosure.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of the vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 64, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire pressure, (ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature.
As per Claim 67, the subject matter is the claimed “wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip”.
There is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to measure the “tire wear” and give the “tire wear” a value, there is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to measure the “tire age” and give the “tire age” a value, and there is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to measure the “brake wear” and give the “brake wear” a value.
The terms “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” are not terms that have only one meaning, and each of “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” may be defined, inferred, and/or measured in a variety of ways, and the present application fails to recite even a single algorithm or any structure for measuring and giving a value to each of a “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear”.
The Examiner notes that while “pertains” does not require actually defining the “driving condition” to be a value of a measured “tire wear”, “tire age” or “brake wear”, the claim does encompass an interpretation that includes defining a “driving condition” based on a value of a “tire wear”, “tire age” or “brake wear”, and there is no algorithm describing how to measure and give a value to a “tire wear”, “tire age” or “brake wear”, and this interpretation of the claim is then not supported by the disclosure.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of the vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 64, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip.
As per Claim 74, the subject matter is the claimed “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”.
There is no disclosure of any algorithm or structure used to determine “use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”.
P[0037] of the specification recites “Driver is on a cellphone (hands free / not hands free)” as the sole support for this claimed subject matter, however, there is no disclosure of any structure capable of determining “hands free” or “not hands free” events. Furthermore, there is no disclosure of any algorithm describing exactly what data is used to determine “use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”, or to determine “hands free” or “not hands free” events.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of the vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 56, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1, the claim recites “wherein, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will not be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)”.
The limitation “the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle” is unclear, as it is unclear what “travel” is and how it is adjusted.
The specification does not provide any clarification, as the specification makes no mention of any adjustment of “travel of the vehicle”, therefore, it is further unclear what subject matter of the specification, if any, corresponds to the claimed “adjusts travel of the vehicle”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 2, it is unclear if the limitation “predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)” is further limiting the limitation “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 1, or if these limitations of Claims 1 and 2 require two separate predictions to be performed.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
Furthermore as per Claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera, determines distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU) to where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU), and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) when the vehicle time to intersection elapses based on distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU) to where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)”.
It is unclear if the limitation “distance” of “determines distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU)” is the same “distance” as recited in “based on distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU)”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 3, it is unclear if the limitation “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)” is further limiting the limitation “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 1, or if these limitations of Claims 1 and 3 require two separate predictions to be performed.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 5, the claim recites “responsive at least in part to prediction”.
It is unclear if the limitation “prediction” refers to the limitation “prediction” of parent Claim 1. The Examiner notes that this is partly due to the fact that the Applicant fails to properly use articles such as “a” and “the” throughout the claims, and in particular for these instances of “prediction”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 6, the claim recites “responsive at least in part to prediction”.
It is unclear if the limitation “prediction” refers to the limitation “prediction” of parent Claim 1. The Examiner notes that this is partly due to the fact that the Applicant fails to properly use articles such as “a” and “the” throughout the claims, and in particular for these instances of “prediction”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 8, it is unclear what the “vehicle load” is and how it is measured.
The term “vehicle load” is not a term that has only one meaning, and a vehicle load may be defined, inferred, and/or measured in a variety of ways, and the present application fails to recite even a single algorithm for measuring and giving a value to a “vehicle load” to define it as a “driving condition” that can be used to perform the “adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle” step of the parent claim.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 9, it is unclear what the “tire wear” is and how it is measured, it is unclear what the “tire age” is and how it is measured, and it is unclear what the “brake wear” is and how it is measured.
The terms “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” are not terms that have only one meaning, and each of “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” may be defined, inferred, and/or measured in a variety of ways, and the present application fails to recite even a single algorithm for measuring and giving a value to each of a “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” to define each as a “driving condition” that can be used to perform the “adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle” step of the parent claim.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 13, it is unclear what location would or would not be considered an “in city location” or an “out of city location”.
The specification provides no clarification, and it is unclear how the exact boundaries of a “city location” are defined by the present application in a manner that would allow for determining when a location is “in” or “out of” a “city location”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 15, the claim recites “responsive at least in part to prediction”.
It is unclear if the limitation “prediction” refers to the limitation “prediction” of parent Claim 1. The Examiner notes that this is partly due to the fact that the Applicant fails to properly use articles such as “a” and “the” throughout the claims, and in particular for these instances of “prediction”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 17, it is unclear if the limitation “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)” is further limiting the limitation “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 1, or if these limitations of Claims 1 and 17 require two separate predictions to be performed.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 21, the claim recites “responsive to prediction”.
It is unclear if the limitation “prediction” refers to the limitation “prediction” of parent Claim 1. The Examiner notes that this is partly due to the fact that the Applicant fails to properly use articles such as “a” and “the” throughout the claims, and in particular for these instances of “prediction”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 22, the claim recites “responsive to prediction”.
It is unclear if the limitation “prediction” refers to the limitation “prediction” of parent Claim 1. The Examiner notes that this is partly due to the fact that the Applicant fails to properly use articles such as “a” and “the” throughout the claims, and in particular for these instances of “prediction”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
Furthermore as per Claim 22, the claim recites “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system stops the vehicle responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) would enter the forward path of travel of the vehicle when or before the vehicle time to intersection elapses and would be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle and closer to the side of the forward path of travel of the vehicle toward which the vulnerable road user (VRU) is initially determined to be present when the vehicle time to intersection elapses”.
It is unclear if the “stops the vehicle” step occurs in combination with the “adjusts travel of the vehicle” of Claim 1, or if Claim 22 is directed to an alternative to the steps of Claim 1. There is no indication in Claim 1 that the “adjusts travel” step of Claim 1 may include stopping a vehicle, and Claim 22 does not expressly recite what limitation, if any, of Claim 1 is further limited by the “stops the vehicle” step, which appears to imply that Claim 22 is an alternative to Claim 1, however, Claim 1 does not appear to be written to support such an alternative, as Claim 1 does not recite that anything other that “adjusts travel” is performed when it is predicted that “vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle”, regardless of what “side” the user is “closer to”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 23, the claim recites “responsive to prediction”.
It is unclear if the limitation “prediction” refers to the limitation “prediction” of parent Claim 1. The Examiner notes that this is partly due to the fact that the Applicant fails to properly use articles such as “a” and “the” throughout the claims, and in particular for these instances of “prediction”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 24, the claim recites “wherein, responsive to determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system generates an alert to the driver of the vehicle”.
However, Claim 1 recites “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle”, and it is unclear if the “determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 24 further limits the “prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 1, or if Claims 1 and 24 require a “prediction” that “the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” and a separate “determination” that “the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 29, the claim recites “responsive to prediction”.
It is unclear if the limitation “prediction” refers to the limitation “prediction” of parent Claim 1. The Examiner notes that this is partly due to the fact that the Applicant fails to properly use articles such as “a” and “the” throughout the claims, and in particular for these instances of “prediction”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 30, it is unclear if the limitation “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)” is further limiting the limitation “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 1, or if these limitations of Claims 1 and 30 require two separate predictions to be performed.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
Furthermore as per Claim 30, the claim recites “wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera, determines distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU) to where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU), and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) when the vehicle time to intersection elapses based on distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU) to where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)”.
It is unclear if the limitation “distance” of “determines distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU)” is the same “distance” as recited in “based on distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU)”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 31, it is unclear if the limitation “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)” is further limiting the limitation “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 1, or if these limitations of Claims 1 and 31 require two separate predictions to be performed.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 32, it is unclear how the step of “the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired” is performed, and it is unclear what state of a driver would or would not be considered “impaired”.
The specification provides no clarification, as the specification fails to recite any algorithm for determining that a driver is “impaired”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 33, it is unclear how the step of “the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk” is performed, and it is unclear what state of a driver would or would not be considered “drunk”.
The specification provides no clarification, as the specification fails to recite any algorithm for determining that a driver is “drunk”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 34, the claim recites “wherein, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will not be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)”.
The limitation “the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle” is unclear, as it is unclear what “travel” is and how it is adjusted.
The specification does not provide any clarification, as the specification makes no mention of any adjustment of “travel of the vehicle”, therefore, it is further unclear what subject matter of the specification, if any, corresponds to the claimed “adjusts travel of the vehicle”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 37, the claim recites “responsive to prediction”.
It is unclear if the limitation “prediction” refers to the limitation “prediction” of parent Claim 34. The Examiner notes that this is partly due to the fact that the Applicant fails to properly use articles such as “a” and “the” throughout the claims, and in particular for these instances of “prediction”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 43, the claim recites “wherein, responsive to determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system generates an alert to the driver of the vehicle”.
However, Claim 34 recites “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle”, and it is unclear if the “determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 43 further limits the “prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 34, or if Claims 34 and 43 require a “prediction” that “the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” and a separate “determination” that “the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 46, it is unclear if the limitation “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)” is further limiting the limitation “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 34, or if these limitations of Claims 34 and 46 require two separate predictions to be performed.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 47, the claim recites “responsive at least in part to prediction”.
It is unclear if the limitation “prediction” refers to the limitation “prediction” of parent Claim 34. The Examiner notes that this is partly due to the fact that the Applicant fails to properly use articles such as “a” and “the” throughout the claims, and in particular for these instances of “prediction”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 49, it is unclear what the “vehicle load” is and how it is measured.
The term “vehicle load” is not a term that has only one meaning, and a vehicle load may be defined, inferred, and/or measured in a variety of ways, and the present application fails to recite even a single algorithm for measuring and giving a value to a “vehicle load” to define it as a “driving condition” that can be used to perform the “adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle” step of the parent claim.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 50, it is unclear what the “tire wear” is and how it is measured, it is unclear what the “tire age” is and how it is measured, and it is unclear what the “brake wear” is and how it is measured.
The terms “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” are not terms that have only one meaning, and each of “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” may be defined, inferred, and/or measured in a variety of ways, and the present application fails to recite even a single algorithm for measuring and giving a value to each of a “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” to define each as a “driving condition” that can be used to perform the “adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle” step of the parent claim.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 54, it is unclear what location would or would not be considered an “in city location” or an “out of city location”.
The specification provides no clarification, and it is unclear how the exact boundaries of a “city location” are defined by the present application in a manner that would allow for determining when a location is “in” or “out of” a “city location”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 56, the claim recites “wherein, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will not be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)”.
The limitation “the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle” is unclear, as it is unclear what “travel” is and how it is adjusted.
The specification does not provide any clarification, as the specification makes no mention of any adjustment of “travel of the vehicle”, therefore, it is further unclear what subject matter of the specification, if any, corresponds to the claimed “adjusts travel of the vehicle”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 58, the claim recites “responsive to prediction”.
It is unclear if the limitation “prediction” refers to the limitation “prediction” of parent Claim 56. The Examiner notes that this is partly due to the fact that the Applicant fails to properly use articles such as “a” and “the” throughout the claims, and in particular for these instances of “prediction”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 60, the claim recites “wherein, responsive to determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system generates an alert to the driver of the vehicle”.
However, Claim 56 recites “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle”, and it is unclear if the “determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 60 further limits the “prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 56, or if Claims 56 and 60 require a “prediction” that “the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” and a separate “determination” that “the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 64, the claim recites “responsive at least in part to prediction”.
It is unclear if the limitation “prediction” refers to the limitation “prediction” of parent Claim 56. The Examiner notes that this is partly due to the fact that the Applicant fails to properly use articles such as “a” and “the” throughout the claims, and in particular for these instances of “prediction”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 66, it is unclear what the “vehicle load” is and how it is measured.
The term “vehicle load” is not a term that has only one meaning, and a vehicle load may be defined, inferred, and/or measured in a variety of ways, and the present application fails to recite even a single algorithm for measuring and giving a value to a “vehicle load” to define it as a “driving condition” that can be used to perform the “adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle” step of the parent claim.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 67, it is unclear what the “tire wear” is and how it is measured, it is unclear what the “tire age” is and how it is measured, and it is unclear what the “brake wear” is and how it is measured.
The terms “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” are not terms that have only one meaning, and each of “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” may be defined, inferred, and/or measured in a variety of ways, and the present application fails to recite even a single algorithm for measuring and giving a value to each of a “tire wear”, “tire age” and “brake wear” to define each as a “driving condition” that can be used to perform the “adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle” step of the parent claim.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 70, it is unclear what location would or would not be considered an “in city location” or an “out of city location”.
The specification provides no clarification, and it is unclear how the exact boundaries of a “city location” are defined by the present application in a manner that would allow for determining when a location is “in” or “out of” a “city location”.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 71, it is unclear if the limitation “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)” is further limiting the limitation “responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle” of Claim 56, or if these limitations of Claims 56 and 71 require two separate predictions to be performed.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
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 1-7, 12-14, 17 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A).
Regarding Claim 1, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system, the vehicular collision avoidance system comprising:
a forward-viewing camera…(“The camera sensor 31 and the radar sensor 32 detect target objects positioned in the traveling direction of the vehicle…”, see P[0024], also see P[0021]-P[0023]);
…
an image processor that processes image data captured by the forward-viewing camera to detect a vulnerable road user (VRU) who is present ahead of the vehicle and is outside of a forward path of travel of the vehicle (“The various sensors 30 include, for example, a camera sensor 31…”, see P[0021] and “The collision mitigation controller 10 runs a program that is stored in the ROM 12, based on the detection results from the various sensors 30…collision mitigation controller 10 thereby performs various processes, such as a collision mitigation process, described hereafter”, see P[0025], also see P[0029]);
wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera, determines a projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) based on movement of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“The collision mitigation controller 10 runs a program that is stored in the ROM 12, based on the detection results from the various sensors 30…collision mitigation controller 10 thereby performs various processes, such as a collision mitigation process, described hereafter”, see P[0025] and “…whether or not a moving object will cross in front of the own vehicle in the traveling direction is estimated”, see P[0031]);
wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, based at least in part on current speed of the vehicle, determines a vehicle time to intersection, and wherein the vehicle time to intersection is the time needed for the vehicle to reach where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) based on the vehicle continuing to move along its forward path of travel at the current speed of the vehicle (“…the CPU 11 calculates a collision time based on the behavior of the target object and the relative speed to the target object (step S410). The collision time indicates the amount of time until the own vehicle and the target object collide”, see P[0057]);
wherein, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will not be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060], where all of the limitations “so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will not be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)” are directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, as seen by the use of “so that”).
Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle;
wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
and wherein adjustment of travel of the vehicle is at least in part based on attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle.
However, Terada et al. (JP2012173803A) teaches adjustment of travel of a vehicle that is at least in part based on attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle (Terada et al.; “…a risk determination part for comparing the value of the characteristic component of the event related potential of the brain wave signal in a brain wave characteristic section predetermined with a timing in which the object has been detected as a start point with a predetermined threshold, and for determining whether or not the driver notices a risk on the basis of the result of comparison; and an output part for outputting a control signal for controlling the vehicle when the result of determination indicates that the driver has not noticed the risk”, see Overview, and see P[0064]-P[0065] and P[0095]-P[0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Wang et al. and Terada et al., and the vehicular collision avoidance system comprising a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., and wherein adjustment of travel of the vehicle is at least in part based on attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Terada et al., in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]), and in order to “provide a safe driving support device or the like for achieving much safer vehicle control” (Terada et al.; see Overview).
Regarding Claim 2, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera, determines distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU) to where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU), and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) when the vehicle time to intersection elapses based on distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU) to where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“…determine the amount of lateral movement of the moving object…”, see P[0050] and FIGS. 4, 5, and 7 and “…the CPU 11 calculates a collision time based on the behavior of the target object and the relative speed to the target object (step S410). The collision time indicates the amount of time until the own vehicle and the target object collide”, see P[0057]).
Regarding Claim 3, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 2, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera, determines speed of movement of the vulnerable road user (VRU), and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) when the vehicle time to intersection elapses based on the determined moving speed of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“…the CPU 11 acquires the latest information on the position of the target object detected by the camera sensor 31..”, see P[0029] and “…the relative speed to the target object (step S200). The relative speed can be determined from the Doppler Effect that occurs when the radar sensor 32 detects the target object, or from the position history of the target object (relative movement trajectory)”, see P[0032] and “…crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]).
Regarding Claim 4, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 2, wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is one selected from the group consisting of (i) a pedestrian, (ii) a cyclist and (iii) a motorcyclist (“The target object is, for example, a pedestrian…”, see P[0021]).
Regarding Claim 5, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a current geographical location of the vehicle (“…whether or not the pedestrian detected the captured image will cross in front of the own vehicle is determined based on whether or not a parameter value (such as the relative speed, the relative distance, or the amount of lateral movement) related to the positional relationship between the pedestrian and the own vehicle meets the reference condition set in advance”, see P[0055]).
Regarding Claim 6, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060] and “…the collision mitigation controller 10 actuates an actuator to avoid collision”, see P[0066]), adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle (“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]).
Regarding Claim 7, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 6, wherein the driving condition pertains to current traction of the vehicle (“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]), where a vehicle speed “pertains” to the “current traction” of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 12, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 6, wherein the driving condition pertains to a current geographical location of the vehicle (“…whether or not the pedestrian detected the captured image will cross in front of the own vehicle is determined based on whether or not a parameter value (such as the relative speed, the relative distance, or the amount of lateral movement) related to the positional relationship between the pedestrian and the own vehicle meets the reference condition set in advance”, see P[0055]).
Regarding Claim 13, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 12, wherein the current geographical location is a location selected from the group consisting of (i) a highway location, (ii) an in city location, (iii) an out of city location, (iv) a residential location and (v) an off road location (see FIG. 4), where clearly the steps of the invention of Minemura et al. may be performed at any location where a road, vehicle and pedestrian may exist as depicted in FIG. 4, and where clearly a road such as seen in FIG. 4 is either in a city or out of a city.
Regarding Claim 14, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 6, wherein the driving condition of the vehicle comprises a condition that affects the ability to control deceleration of the vehicle (“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]), where a speed of the own vehicle affects the “ability to control deceleration” of the own vehicle.
Regarding Claim 17, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) when the vehicle time to intersection elapses based at least in part on processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera (“The various sensors 30 include, for example, a camera sensor 31…”, see P[0021] and “The collision mitigation controller 10 runs a program that is stored in the ROM 12, based on the detection results from the various sensors 30…collision mitigation controller 10 thereby performs various processes, such as a collision mitigation process, described hereafter”, see P[0025], and “…the CPU 11 acquires the latest information on the position of the target object detected by the camera sensor 31..”, see P[0029] and “…the relative speed to the target object (step S200). The relative speed can be determined from the Doppler Effect that occurs when the radar sensor 32 detects the target object, or from the position history of the target object (relative movement trajectory)”, see P[0032] and “…crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]).
Regarding Claim 27, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle by adjusting speed of the vehicle (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060]).
Regarding Claim 28, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 27, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts speed of the vehicle by controlling a braking system of the vehicle (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060]).
Regarding Claim 29, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 27, wherein, responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system reduces speed of the vehicle so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will have sufficient time to move across the forward path of travel of the vehicle before the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Bonne (2009/0287368).
Regarding Claim 8, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 6, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire pressure, (ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature.
However, Bonne (2009/0287368) teaches setting a trigger threshold for braking based on a vehicle load (Bonne; “…this may be an altered load, which may be established via sensors on the springs and shock absorbers, an increased load resulting in a lengthening of the braking distance”, see P[0013] and P[0019]-P[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Bonne, and wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire pressure, (ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature, as rendered obvious by Bonne, in order to provide “a motor vehicle of the type cited at the beginning, whose active and passive traffic safety is increased by an improved driver assistance system” (Bonne; see P[0007]).
Regarding Claim 9, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 6, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip.
However, Bonne (2009/0287368) teaches setting a trigger threshold for braking based on tire wear (Bonne; “Information in regard to the temperature and/or the wear or the operating time of the tires may also be taken into consideration”, see P[0011] and P[0019]-P[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Bonne, and wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip, as rendered obvious by Bonne, in order to provide “a motor vehicle of the type cited at the beginning, whose active and passive traffic safety is increased by an improved driver assistance system” (Bonne; see P[0007]).
Regarding Claim 10, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 6, wherein the driving condition comprises an environment parameter pertaining to an environment in which the vehicle is traveling (“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]).
Claims 11, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Inoue et al. (2008/0243389).
Regarding Claim 11, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 6, wherein the driving condition comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) ambient temperature at the vehicle, (ii) a weather condition, (iii) the current date and (iv) the current season.
However, Inoue et al. (2008/0243389) teaches vehicle collision avoidance equipment and method, where a safety keeping area surrounding a vehicle is calculated, and when it is detected or predicted that a pedestrian or another vehicle intrudes or is about to intrude into the safety keeping area, an alarm may be output (Inoue et al.; “…a safety keeping area is calculated…When it is detected or predicted by an other vehicle safety keeping area intrusion detector 107 that the other vehicle intrudes or will intrude into the safety keeping area…the alarm may be output”, see P[0029]), where the size of the safety keeping area may be defined based on various information such as date, time and weather information (Inoue et al.; “The vehicle position velocity traveling direction detector 104 may provide in addition to the above information, local information such as date, time, school zone, characteristic of city, town or country, weather, dangerous point or area caused by construction or known from experience and so forth. The safety keeping area extension calculator 106 may determine the safety keeping area on the basis of the above information. For example, the safety keeping area is enlarged in response to the information of the school zone” (emphasis added), see P[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Inoue et al., and wherein the driving condition comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) ambient temperature at the vehicle, (ii) a weather condition, (iii) the current date and (iv) the current season, as rendered obvious by Inoue et al., in order to determine a safety keeping area related to an alarm based on weather information (Inoue et al.; see P[0035]) and for a movable body such as an automobile, to provide for “preventing a collision between the movable body and the object and outputting an alarm, when deciding the at least one of that the object is within the safety keeping area and that the object will be within the safety keeping area” (Inoue et al.; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a location and time parameter pertaining to a current geographical location of the vehicle and a particular event time associated with that location.
However, Inoue et al. (2008/0243389) teaches vehicle collision avoidance equipment and method, where a safety keeping area surrounding a vehicle is calculated, and when it is detected or predicted that a pedestrian or another vehicle intrudes or is about to intrude into the safety keeping area, an alarm may be output (Inoue et al.; “…a safety keeping area is calculated…When it is detected or predicted by an other vehicle safety keeping area intrusion detector 107 that the other vehicle intrudes or will intrude into the safety keeping area…the alarm may be output”, see P[0029]), where the size of the safety keeping area may be defined based on various information such as date, time and a geographical location such as a school zone (Inoue et al.; “The vehicle position velocity traveling direction detector 104 may provide in addition to the above information, local information such as date, time, school zone, characteristic of city, town or country, weather, dangerous point or area caused by construction or known from experience and so forth. The safety keeping area extension calculator 106 may determine the safety keeping area on the basis of the above information. For example, the safety keeping area is enlarged in response to the information of the school zone” (emphasis added), see P[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Inoue et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a location and time parameter pertaining to a current geographical location of the vehicle and a particular event time associated with that location, as rendered obvious by Inoue et al., in order to determine a safety keeping area related to an alarm based on information regarding a date, time and a geographical location (Inoue et al.; see P[0035]) and for a movable body such as an automobile, to provide for “preventing a collision between the movable body and the object and outputting an alarm, when deciding the at least one of that the object is within the safety keeping area and that the object will be within the safety keeping area” (Inoue et al.; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 16, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 15, wherein the location and time parameter includes at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) the vehicle being close to a stadium when an event just ended, (ii) the vehicle being close to a bus stop with the bus scheduled at that time, (iii) the vehicle approaching a traffic jam that is at a full stop at that time and (iv) a fire alert in a building near to the current geographical location of the vehicle.
The Examiner first notes that the limitation “when an event just ended” amounts to an intended use or intended situation, as both the claims and the specification fail to describe any algorithm for determining or confirming that “an event just ended”.
Furthermore, Inoue et al. (2008/0243389) teaches vehicle collision avoidance equipment and method, where a safety keeping area surrounding a vehicle is calculated, and when it is detected or predicted that a pedestrian or another vehicle intrudes or is about to intrude into the safety keeping area, an alarm may be output (Inoue et al.; “…a safety keeping area is calculated…When it is detected or predicted by an other vehicle safety keeping area intrusion detector 107 that the other vehicle intrudes or will intrude into the safety keeping area…the alarm may be output”, see P[0029]), where the size of the safety keeping area may be defined based on various information such as date, time and a geographical location such as a school zone (Inoue et al.; “The vehicle position velocity traveling direction detector 104 may provide in addition to the above information, local information such as date, time, school zone, characteristic of city, town or country, weather, dangerous point or area caused by construction or known from experience and so forth. The safety keeping area extension calculator 106 may determine the safety keeping area on the basis of the above information. For example, the safety keeping area is enlarged in response to the information of the school zone” (emphasis added), see P[0035]), where clearly any date or time whatsoever may be used, and whatever “event” is associated with that particular date or time is a design choice that brings no patentable distinction, as the system would respond in the same way to any time regardless of what event the time represents. For example, the limitation “the vehicle being close to a stadium when an event just ended” can be executed by Inoue et al. as simply defining a time and location to change the size of the safety keeping area, where the reason for choosing a particular time, such as a time that “an event just ended”, is an intended use that does not further limit the claim which would be performed if using the invention of Inoue et al. at a location that happens to be associated with a “stadium when an event just ended”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Inoue et al., and wherein the location and time parameter includes at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) the vehicle being close to a stadium when an event just ended, (ii) the vehicle being close to a bus stop with the bus scheduled at that time, (iii) the vehicle approaching a traffic jam that is at a full stop at that time and (iv) a fire alert in a building near to the current geographical location of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Inoue et al., in order to determine a safety keeping area related to an alarm based on information regarding a date, time and a geographical location (Inoue et al.; see P[0035]) and for a movable body such as an automobile, to provide for “preventing a collision between the movable body and the object and outputting an alarm, when deciding the at least one of that the object is within the safety keeping area and that the object will be within the safety keeping area” (Inoue et al.; see Abstract).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509).
Regarding Claim 18, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle, (ii) volume of music in the vehicle and (iii) use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by determining at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle, (ii) volume of music in the vehicle and (iii) use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle, (ii) volume of music in the vehicle and (iii) use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, where when the prescribed value is increased, this would lead to a change in timing of when the warning is generated and lead to generating the warning at an "earlier time", in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Regarding Claim 19, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of MCNEW, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claims 20, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Regarding Claim 20, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip.
However, P[0045] of the specification of the present application recites Applicant admitted prior art of an “image processing chip”, as seen in “For example, the image processor may comprise an EYEQ2 or EYEQ3 image processing chip available from Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. of Jerusalem, Israel, and may include object detection software (such as the types described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,855,755; 7,720,580 and/or 7,038,577, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entireties)”, where Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al. (7,855,755) will be used as the particular prior art applied to this claim rejection, see col.52, particularly lines 35-62 of Weller et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Regarding Claim 30, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1,…, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera, determines distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU) to where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU), and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) when the vehicle time to intersection elapses based on distance from the vulnerable road user (VRU) to where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“…determine the amount of lateral movement of the moving object…”, see P[0050] and FIGS. 4, 5, and 7 and “…the CPU 11 calculates a collision time based on the behavior of the target object and the relative speed to the target object (step S410). The collision time indicates the amount of time until the own vehicle and the target object collide”, see P[0057]).
Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip.
However, P[0045] of the specification of the present application recites Applicant admitted prior art of an “image processing chip”, as seen in “For example, the image processor may comprise an EYEQ2 or EYEQ3 image processing chip available from Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. of Jerusalem, Israel, and may include object detection software (such as the types described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,855,755; 7,720,580 and/or 7,038,577, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entireties)”, where Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al. (7,855,755) will be used as the particular prior art applied to this claim rejection, see col.52, particularly lines 35-62 of Weller et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Regarding Claim 31, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 30, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera, determines speed of movement of the vulnerable road user (VRU), and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) when the vehicle time to intersection elapses based on the determined moving speed of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“…the CPU 11 acquires the latest information on the position of the target object detected by the camera sensor 31..”, see P[0029] and “…the relative speed to the target object (step S200). The relative speed can be determined from the Doppler Effect that occurs when the radar sensor 32 detects the target object, or from the position history of the target object (relative movement trajectory)”, see P[0032] and “…crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058] and “…the CPU 11 calculates a collision time based on the behavior of the target object and the relative speed to the target object (step S410). The collision time indicates the amount of time until the own vehicle and the target object collide”, see P[0057]).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Sasabuchi (2015/0291159).
Regarding Claim 21, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) would, when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle…(“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058] and “…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060]).
Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) would, when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle and closer to the side of the forward path of travel of the vehicle opposite from the side toward where the vulnerable road user (VRU) is initially determined to be present.
However, Sasabuchi (2015/0291159) teaches a collision possibility apparatus and determination method, where an amount of overlap of an object in an overlap region defined by two lines that represent a travel path of a vehicle is determined (Sasabuchi; see P[0041]), where it can be seen that this region as defined by lines “y1” and “y2” corresponds to the width of a vehicle as seen in FIG. 5, and where a braking force may be determined based on a risk degree “W” (Sasabuchi; see P[0054]), and where Sasabuchi teaches an embodiment where a risk degree is determined based on a position of the object within the overlap region, such as a position with respect to a center of the overlap region (Sasabuchi; “The first analysis part 34, for example, calculates that the overlap amount is great when the future location of the object is positioned substantially at the center of the overlap region…as shown in FIG. 7, since the first analysis part 34 calculates the risk degree W1 to be greater when the overlap amount becomes greater, the first analysis part 34 calculates the risk degree W1 to be greater when the future location of the object is close to substantially the center of the overlap region”, see P[0062]), which clearly shows that it can be determined if the object is “closer to the side of the forward path of travel of the vehicle opposite from the side toward where the vulnerable road user (VRU) is initially determined to be present” or to a left side of the overlap region of FIG. 5, which would lead to a different risk degree than if the object was at the center of the overlap region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Sasabuchi, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) would, when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle and closer to the side of the forward path of travel of the vehicle opposite from the side toward where the vulnerable road user (VRU) is initially determined to be present, as rendered obvious by Sasabuchi, in order to “determine a possibility of colliding with the object” (Sasabuchi; see Abstract) and “enhance the determination accuracy of a collision possibility” (Sasabuchi; see P[0063]).
Regarding Claim 22, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system stops the vehicle responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) would enter the forward path of travel of the vehicle when or before the vehicle time to intersection elapses and would be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle (“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058] and “…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060]).
Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portion of the claimed
wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system stops the vehicle responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) would enter the forward path of travel of the vehicle when or before the vehicle time to intersection elapses and would be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle and closer to the side of the forward path of travel of the vehicle toward which the vulnerable road user (VRU) is initially determined to be present when the vehicle time to intersection elapses.
However, Sasabuchi (2015/0291159) teaches a collision possibility apparatus and determination method, where an amount of overlap of an object in an overlap region defined by two lines that represent a travel path of a vehicle is determined (Sasabuchi; see P[0041]), where it can be seen that this region as defined by lines “y1” and “y2” corresponds to the width of a vehicle as seen in FIG. 5, and where a braking force may be determined based on a risk degree “W” (Sasabuchi; see P[0054]), and where Sasabuchi teaches an embodiment where a risk degree is determined based on a position of the object within the overlap region, such as a position with respect to a center of the overlap region (Sasabuchi; “The first analysis part 34, for example, calculates that the overlap amount is great when the future location of the object is positioned substantially at the center of the overlap region…as shown in FIG. 7, since the first analysis part 34 calculates the risk degree W1 to be greater when the overlap amount becomes greater, the first analysis part 34 calculates the risk degree W1 to be greater when the future location of the object is close to substantially the center of the overlap region”, see P[0062]), which clearly shows that it can be determined if the object is “closer to the side of the forward path of travel of the vehicle toward which the vulnerable road user (VRU) is initially determined to be present when the vehicle time to intersection elapses” or to a right side of the overlap region of FIG. 5, which would lead to a different risk degree than if the object was at the center of the overlap region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Sasabuchi, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system stops the vehicle responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) would enter the forward path of travel of the vehicle when or before the vehicle time to intersection elapses and would be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle and closer to the side of the forward path of travel of the vehicle toward which the vulnerable road user (VRU) is initially determined to be present when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, as rendered obvious by Sasabuchi, in order to “determine a possibility of colliding with the object” (Sasabuchi; see Abstract) and “enhance the determination accuracy of a collision possibility” (Sasabuchi; see P[0063]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Lemelson et al. (2004/0022416).
Regarding Claim 23, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the “vulnerable road user (VRU) alert” of the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system generates a vulnerable road user (VRU) alert to the vulnerable road user (VRU) responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) would be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses.
However, Lemelson et al. (2004/0022416) teaches a motor vehicle warning and control system and method where a time to collision is generated for various obstacles in the path of a vehicle such as pedestrians (Lemelson et al.; "…obstacles are in the path of travel of the vehicle”, see P[0069] and P[0042], and see “…the time to collision can be calculated for each detected hazard…”, see P[0080]), and where a warning such as activating the headlights or sounding a horn of the vehicle in response to an impending or detected possible collision (Lemelson et al.; “The motor vehicle warning and control system can warn other vehicles of an impending or detected possible collision by flashing exterior warning lights and/or sounding audible alarms including the horn”, see P[0102] and “The second, and/or third and fourth subsystems may also be operable to effect or control the operations of additional warning means such as the horn, headlights and/or other warning lights on the vehicle or other warning means which operates to alert, flag or warn the driver of the approaching or approached vehicle or a pedestrian of the approaching hazardous condition”, see P[0014]), where clearly the horn will act as a “pedestrian alert”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Lemelson et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system generates a vulnerable road user (VRU) alert to the vulnerable road user (VRU) responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) would be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, as rendered obvious by Lemelson et al., in order to provide a system which “may be used to avoid obstacles and accidents” (Lemelson et al.; see P[0002]).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Yopp (8,788,176).
Regarding Claim 24, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein, responsive to determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system generates an alert to the driver of the vehicle.
However, Minemura et al. does teach a collision mitigation controller that may issue a warning (“The collision mitigation controller 10 performs such processes and operates the controlled subject 40 based on the processing results of the processes. The controlled subject 40 includes, for example, an actuator that drives a braking, a steering, a seatbelt or the like, and a warning device that issues a warning”, see P[0026]).
Furthermore, Yopp (8,788,176) teaches a vehicle collision warning system that generates a warning signal based on a time-to-impact (Yopp; “DAS system 30 may be comprised of a forward collision warning (FCW) system wherein actuator 31 comprises a perceptible warning generator such as an audio speaker generating warning tones or a visual display element for generating a flashing light or message. The perceptible warning signal alerts the driver of the predicted impact so that the driver can take evasive action”, see col.3, particularly lines 61-67 and col.4, particularly lines 1-11 and “…vehicle 25 employs an update module 35 for monitoring various aspects of the driving conditions and updating the time-to-impact threshold used by DAS 30…each one provides an incremental offset to be added to the default threshold to increase the magnitude of the threshold time and thereby increase the corresponding intrusion zone (the violation of which triggers the driver assistance action)”, see col.4, particularly lines 12-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Yopp, and wherein, responsive to determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system generates an alert to the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Yopp, in order to “take a driver assistance action in response to a predicted impact with an approaching object according to a time-to-impact threshold” (Yopp; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 25, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 24, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle.
However, Minemura et al. does teach a collision mitigation controller that may issue a warning (“The collision mitigation controller 10 performs such processes and operates the controlled subject 40 based on the processing results of the processes. The controlled subject 40 includes, for example, an actuator that drives a braking, a steering, a seatbelt or the like, and a warning device that issues a warning”, see P[0026]).
Furthermore, Yopp (8,788,176) teaches a vehicle collision warning system that generates a warning signal based on a time-to-impact, where a time-to-impact is determined after it has been determined that an object is on a collision course with the vehicle, and an and a time-to-impact threshold may be increased based on driving conditions, which will cause the warning signal of Yopp to avoid a tracked object to be generated earlier than if the threshold is not increased (Yopp; “DAS system 30 may be comprised of a forward collision warning (FCW) system wherein actuator 31 comprises a perceptible warning generator such as an audio speaker generating warning tones or a visual display element for generating a flashing light or message. The perceptible warning signal alerts the driver of the predicted impact so that the driver can take evasive action”, see col.3, particularly lines 61-67 and col.4, particularly lines 1-11 and “…vehicle 25 employs an update module 35 for monitoring various aspects of the driving conditions and updating the time-to-impact threshold used by DAS 30…each one provides an incremental offset to be added to the default threshold to increase the magnitude of the threshold time and thereby increase the corresponding intrusion zone (the violation of which triggers the driver assistance action)”, see col.4, particularly lines 12-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Yopp, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Yopp, in order to “take a driver assistance action in response to a predicted impact with an approaching object according to a time-to-impact threshold” (Yopp; see Abstract).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Yopp (8,788,176), further in view of Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A).
Regarding Claim 26, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 24, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle.
However, Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A) teaches providing an alert earlier as a driver’s attention level becomes smaller (Ihara et al.; see P[0007]-P[0008], P[0011], P[0032], P[0060] and P[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Ihara et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Ihara et al., in order to provide “a vehicle collision damage mitigation device that can avoid situations in which driver confusion and vehicle behavior become unstable, even on various roads and in various driving conditions” (Ihara et al.; see P[0006]).
Claims 32-37, 46-48, 51 and 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509).
Regarding Claim 32, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is impaired, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, where when the prescribed value is increased, this would lead to a change in timing of when the warning is generated and lead to generating the warning at an "earlier time", in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 33, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) renders obvious determining attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50), where clearly “any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired” may include when a driver is “drunk”, as it is common knowledge that intoxication can impair reaction time, therefore, the claim is an obvious variation of Kajiwara that could be achieved by simply labeling an impaired state of a driver, determined by the invention of Kajiwara as “drunk”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining that the driver is drunk, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, where when the prescribed value is increased, this would lead to a change in timing of when the warning is generated and lead to generating the warning at an "earlier time", in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 34, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system, the vehicular collision avoidance system comprising:
a forward-viewing camera…(“The camera sensor 31 and the radar sensor 32 detect target objects positioned in the traveling direction of the vehicle…”, see P[0024], also see P[0021]-P[0023]);
…
an image processor that processes image data captured by the forward-viewing camera to detect a vulnerable road user (VRU) who is present ahead of the vehicle and is outside of a forward path of travel of the vehicle (“The various sensors 30 include, for example, a camera sensor 31…”, see P[0021] and “The collision mitigation controller 10 runs a program that is stored in the ROM 12, based on the detection results from the various sensors 30…collision mitigation controller 10 thereby performs various processes, such as a collision mitigation process, described hereafter”, see P[0025], also see P[0029]);
wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a pedestrian (“…a pedestrian…”, see P[0021]);
wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera, determines a projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) based on movement of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“The collision mitigation controller 10 runs a program that is stored in the ROM 12, based on the detection results from the various sensors 30…collision mitigation controller 10 thereby performs various processes, such as a collision mitigation process, described hereafter”, see P[0025] and “…whether or not a moving object will cross in front of the own vehicle in the traveling direction is estimated”, see P[0031]);
wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, based at least in part on current speed of the vehicle, determines a vehicle time to intersection, and wherein the vehicle time to intersection is the time needed for the vehicle to reach where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) based on the vehicle continuing to move along its forward path of travel at the current speed of the vehicle (“…the CPU 11 calculates a collision time based on the behavior of the target object and the relative speed to the target object (step S410). The collision time indicates the amount of time until the own vehicle and the target object collide”, see P[0057]);
wherein, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will not be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060], where all of the limitations “so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will not be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)” are directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, as seen by the use of “so that”).
Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle;
wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns
and the claimed
wherein adjustment of travel of the vehicle is at least in part based on attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle; and
wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle, (ii) volume of music in the vehicle and (iii) use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Furthermore, regarding the limitation “wherein adjustment of travel of the vehicle is at least in part based on attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle”, Terada et al. (JP2012173803A) teaches adjustment of travel of a vehicle that is at least in part based on attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle (Terada et al.; “…a risk determination part for comparing the value of the characteristic component of the event related potential of the brain wave signal in a brain wave characteristic section predetermined with a timing in which the object has been detected as a start point with a predetermined threshold, and for determining whether or not the driver notices a risk on the basis of the result of comparison; and an output part for outputting a control signal for controlling the vehicle when the result of determination indicates that the driver has not noticed the risk”, see Overview, and see P[0064]-P[0065] and P[0095]-P[0097]).
Furthermore, regarding the limitation “wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle, (ii) volume of music in the vehicle and (iii) use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle”, Kajiwara (5,432,509) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by determining at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle, (ii) volume of music in the vehicle and (iii) use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Wang et al., Terada et al., and Kajiwara, and the vehicular collision avoidance system comprising a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., and wherein adjustment of travel of the vehicle is at least in part based on attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Terada et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle, (ii) volume of music in the vehicle and (iii) use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]), and in order to “provide a safe driving support device or the like for achieving much safer vehicle control” (Terada et al.; see Overview), and in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 35, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 34, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle by adjusting speed of the vehicle (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060]).
Regarding Claim 36, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 35, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts speed of the vehicle by controlling a braking system of the vehicle (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060]).
Regarding Claim 37, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 35, wherein, responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system reduces speed of the vehicle so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will have sufficient time to move across the forward path of travel of the vehicle before the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060]).
Regarding Claim 46, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 34, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) when the vehicle time to intersection elapses based at least in part on processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera (“The various sensors 30 include, for example, a camera sensor 31…”, see P[0021] and “The collision mitigation controller 10 runs a program that is stored in the ROM 12, based on the detection results from the various sensors 30…collision mitigation controller 10 thereby performs various processes, such as a collision mitigation process, described hereafter”, see P[0025], and “…the CPU 11 acquires the latest information on the position of the target object detected by the camera sensor 31..”, see P[0029] and “…the relative speed to the target object (step S200). The relative speed can be determined from the Doppler Effect that occurs when the radar sensor 32 detects the target object, or from the position history of the target object (relative movement trajectory)”, see P[0032] and “…crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]).
Regarding Claim 47, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 34, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle (“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]).
Regarding Claim 48, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 47, wherein the driving condition pertains to current traction of the vehicle (“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]), where a vehicle speed “pertains” to the “current traction” of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 51, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 47, wherein the driving condition pertains to an environment in which the vehicle is traveling (“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]).
Regarding Claim 53, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 47, wherein the driving condition pertains to a current geographical location of the vehicle (“…whether or not the pedestrian detected the captured image will cross in front of the own vehicle is determined based on whether or not a parameter value (such as the relative speed, the relative distance, or the amount of lateral movement) related to the positional relationship between the pedestrian and the own vehicle meets the reference condition set in advance”, see P[0055]).
Regarding Claim 54, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 47, wherein the driving condition of the vehicle pertains to the vehicle being at a location selected from the group consisting of (i) a highway location, (ii) an in city location, (iii) an out of city location, (iv) a residential location and (v) an off road location (see FIG. 4), where clearly the steps of the invention of Minemura et al. may be performed at any location where a road, vehicle and pedestrian may exist as depicted in FIG. 4, and where clearly a road such as seen in FIG. 4 is either in a city or out of a city.
Regarding Claim 55, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 47, wherein the driving condition of the vehicle comprises a condition that affects the ability to control deceleration of the vehicle (“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]), where a speed of the own vehicle affects the “ability to control deceleration” of the own vehicle.
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509), further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Regarding Claim 38, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 34, wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip.
However, P[0045] of the specification of the present application recites Applicant admitted prior art of an “image processing chip”, as seen in “For example, the image processor may comprise an EYEQ2 or EYEQ3 image processing chip available from Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. of Jerusalem, Israel, and may include object detection software (such as the types described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,855,755; 7,720,580 and/or 7,038,577, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entireties)”, where Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al. (7,855,755) will be used as the particular prior art applied to this claim rejection, see col.52, particularly lines 35-62 of Weller et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Regarding Claim 39, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 38, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by determining drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509), further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755), further in view of Do et al. (2015/0375756).
Regarding Claim 40, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 38, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining volume of music in the vehicle.
However, Do et al. (2015/0375756) teaches collecting data of a music or noise level in a vehicle, and identifying distractions such as a noise level in a vehicle (Do et al.; see P[0030] and P[0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Do et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining volume of music in the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Do et al., in order to provide for “determining vehicle accident risk” (Do et al.; see Abstract), and in order to determine a “dangerous roadway risk” based on “distractions identified in the vehicle” (Do et al.; see P[0040]).
Regarding Claim 41, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 38, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle.
However, Do et al. (2015/0375756) teaches collecting data of a current phone or device usage by a driver, and identifying distractions such as mobile phone usage (Do et al.; see P[0030], P[0035] and P[0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Do et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Do et al., in order to provide for “determining vehicle accident risk” (Do et al.; see Abstract), and in order to determine a “dangerous roadway risk” based on “distractions identified in the vehicle” (Do et al.; see P[0040]).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509), further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175).
Regarding Claim 42, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 34, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of MCNEW, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by MCNEW, in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Claims 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509), further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Yopp (8,788,176).
Regarding Claim 43, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 42, wherein, responsive to determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system generates an alert to the driver of the vehicle.
However, Minemura et al. does teach a collision mitigation controller that may issue a warning (“The collision mitigation controller 10 performs such processes and operates the controlled subject 40 based on the processing results of the processes. The controlled subject 40 includes, for example, an actuator that drives a braking, a steering, a seatbelt or the like, and a warning device that issues a warning”, see P[0026]).
Furthermore, Yopp (8,788,176) teaches a vehicle collision warning system that generates a warning signal based on a time-to-impact (Yopp; “DAS system 30 may be comprised of a forward collision warning (FCW) system wherein actuator 31 comprises a perceptible warning generator such as an audio speaker generating warning tones or a visual display element for generating a flashing light or message. The perceptible warning signal alerts the driver of the predicted impact so that the driver can take evasive action”, see col.3, particularly lines 61-67 and col.4, particularly lines 1-11 and “…vehicle 25 employs an update module 35 for monitoring various aspects of the driving conditions and updating the time-to-impact threshold used by DAS 30…each one provides an incremental offset to be added to the default threshold to increase the magnitude of the threshold time and thereby increase the corresponding intrusion zone (the violation of which triggers the driver assistance action)”, see col.4, particularly lines 12-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Yopp, and wherein, responsive to determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system generates an alert to the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Yopp, in order to “take a driver assistance action in response to a predicted impact with an approaching object according to a time-to-impact threshold” (Yopp; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 44, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 43, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle.
However, Minemura et al. does teach a collision mitigation controller that may issue a warning (“The collision mitigation controller 10 performs such processes and operates the controlled subject 40 based on the processing results of the processes. The controlled subject 40 includes, for example, an actuator that drives a braking, a steering, a seatbelt or the like, and a warning device that issues a warning”, see P[0026]).
Furthermore, Yopp (8,788,176) teaches a vehicle collision warning system that generates a warning signal based on a time-to-impact, where a time-to-impact is determined after it has been determined that an object is on a collision course with the vehicle, and an and a time-to-impact threshold may be increased based on driving conditions, which will cause the warning signal of Yopp to avoid a tracked object to be generated earlier than if the threshold is not increased (Yopp; “DAS system 30 may be comprised of a forward collision warning (FCW) system wherein actuator 31 comprises a perceptible warning generator such as an audio speaker generating warning tones or a visual display element for generating a flashing light or message. The perceptible warning signal alerts the driver of the predicted impact so that the driver can take evasive action”, see col.3, particularly lines 61-67 and col.4, particularly lines 1-11 and “…vehicle 25 employs an update module 35 for monitoring various aspects of the driving conditions and updating the time-to-impact threshold used by DAS 30…each one provides an incremental offset to be added to the default threshold to increase the magnitude of the threshold time and thereby increase the corresponding intrusion zone (the violation of which triggers the driver assistance action)”, see col.4, particularly lines 12-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Yopp, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Yopp, in order to “take a driver assistance action in response to a predicted impact with an approaching object according to a time-to-impact threshold” (Yopp; see Abstract).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509), further in view of MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Yopp (8,788,176), further in view of Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A).
Regarding Claim 45, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 44, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle.
However, Ihara et al. (JP2009154590A) teaches providing an alert earlier as a driver’s attention level becomes smaller (Ihara et al.; see P[0007]-P[0008], P[0011], P[0032], P[0060] and P[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Ihara et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts the time at which to generate the alert based at least in part on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Ihara et al., in order to provide “a vehicle collision damage mitigation device that can avoid situations in which driver confusion and vehicle behavior become unstable, even on various roads and in various driving conditions” (Ihara et al.; see P[0006]).
Claims 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509), further in view of Bonne (2009/0287368).
Regarding Claim 49, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 47, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire pressure, (ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature.
However, Bonne (2009/0287368) teaches setting a trigger threshold for braking based on a vehicle load (Bonne; “…this may be an altered load, which may be established via sensors on the springs and shock absorbers, an increased load resulting in a lengthening of the braking distance”, see P[0013] and P[0019]-P[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Bonne, and wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire pressure, (ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature, as rendered obvious by Bonne, in order to provide “a motor vehicle of the type cited at the beginning, whose active and passive traffic safety is increased by an improved driver assistance system” (Bonne; see P[0007]).
Regarding Claim 50, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 47, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip.
However, Bonne (2009/0287368) teaches setting a trigger threshold for braking based on tire wear (Bonne; “Information in regard to the temperature and/or the wear or the operating time of the tires may also be taken into consideration”, see P[0011] and P[0019]-P[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Bonne, and wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip, as rendered obvious by Bonne, in order to provide “a motor vehicle of the type cited at the beginning, whose active and passive traffic safety is increased by an improved driver assistance system” (Bonne; see P[0007]).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509), further in view of Inoue et al. (2008/0243389).
Regarding Claim 52, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 47, wherein the driving condition comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) ambient temperature at the vehicle, (ii) a weather condition, (iii) the current date and (iv) the current season.
However, Inoue et al. (2008/0243389) teaches vehicle collision avoidance equipment and method, where a safety keeping area surrounding a vehicle is calculated, and when it is detected or predicted that a pedestrian or another vehicle intrudes or is about to intrude into the safety keeping area, an alarm may be output (Inoue et al.; “…a safety keeping area is calculated…When it is detected or predicted by an other vehicle safety keeping area intrusion detector 107 that the other vehicle intrudes or will intrude into the safety keeping area…the alarm may be output”, see P[0029]), where the size of the safety keeping area may be defined based on various information such as date, time and weather information (Inoue et al.; “The vehicle position velocity traveling direction detector 104 may provide in addition to the above information, local information such as date, time, school zone, characteristic of city, town or country, weather, dangerous point or area caused by construction or known from experience and so forth. The safety keeping area extension calculator 106 may determine the safety keeping area on the basis of the above information. For example, the safety keeping area is enlarged in response to the information of the school zone” (emphasis added), see P[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Inoue et al., and wherein the driving condition comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) ambient temperature at the vehicle, (ii) a weather condition, (iii) the current date and (iv) the current season, as rendered obvious by Inoue et al., in order to determine a safety keeping area related to an alarm based on weather information (Inoue et al.; see P[0035]) and for a movable body such as an automobile, to provide for “preventing a collision between the movable body and the object and outputting an alarm, when deciding the at least one of that the object is within the safety keeping area and that the object will be within the safety keeping area” (Inoue et al.; see Abstract).
Claims 56-58, 64, 65 and 69-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A).
Regarding Claim 56, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system, the vehicular collision avoidance system comprising:
a forward-viewing camera…(“The camera sensor 31 and the radar sensor 32 detect target objects positioned in the traveling direction of the vehicle…”, see P[0024], also see P[0021]-P[0023]);
…
an image processor that processes image data captured by the forward-viewing camera to detect a vulnerable road user (VRU) who is present ahead of the vehicle and is outside of a forward path of travel of the vehicle (“The various sensors 30 include, for example, a camera sensor 31…”, see P[0021] and “The collision mitigation controller 10 runs a program that is stored in the ROM 12, based on the detection results from the various sensors 30…collision mitigation controller 10 thereby performs various processes, such as a collision mitigation process, described hereafter”, see P[0025], also see P[0029]);
wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is one selected from the group consisting of (i) a pedestrian, (ii) a cyclist and (iii) a motorcyclist (“The target object is, for example, a pedestrian…”, see P[0021]);
wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera, determines a projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) based on movement of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“The collision mitigation controller 10 runs a program that is stored in the ROM 12, based on the detection results from the various sensors 30…collision mitigation controller 10 thereby performs various processes, such as a collision mitigation process, described hereafter”, see P[0025] and “…whether or not a moving object will cross in front of the own vehicle in the traveling direction is estimated”, see P[0031]);
wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, based at least in part on current speed of the vehicle, determines a vehicle time to intersection, and wherein the vehicle time to intersection is the time needed for the vehicle to reach where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) based on the vehicle continuing to move along its forward path of travel at the current speed of the vehicle (“…the CPU 11 calculates a collision time based on the behavior of the target object and the relative speed to the target object (step S410). The collision time indicates the amount of time until the own vehicle and the target object collide”, see P[0057]);
wherein, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will not be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060], where all of the limitations “so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will not be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU)” are directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, as seen by the use of “so that”).
Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle;
wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns.
However, Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) teaches a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns (Wang et al.; see P[00108], P[00142] and FIGS. 1-2 and 15).
Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle.
However, MCNEW (2016/0009175) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle (MCNEW; see P[0064]).
Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
and wherein adjustment of travel of the vehicle is at least in part based on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle.
However, Terada et al. (JP2012173803A) teaches adjustment of travel of a vehicle that is at least in part based on attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle (Terada et al.; “…a risk determination part for comparing the value of the characteristic component of the event related potential of the brain wave signal in a brain wave characteristic section predetermined with a timing in which the object has been detected as a start point with a predetermined threshold, and for determining whether or not the driver notices a risk on the basis of the result of comparison; and an output part for outputting a control signal for controlling the vehicle when the result of determination indicates that the driver has not noticed the risk”, see Overview, and see P[0064]-P[0065] and P[0095]-P[0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Wang et al., MCNEW and Terada et al., and a forward-viewing camera disposed at a windshield of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular collision avoidance system, the forward-viewing camera viewing forward through the windshield of the vehicle, wherein the forward-viewing camera comprises an imaging sensor having at least one million photosensing elements arranged in rows and columns, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle by tracking an eye of the driver of the vehicle, and wherein adjustment of travel of the vehicle is at least in part based on attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., MCNEW and Terada et al., in order to provide “a vision system or imaging system for a vehicle that utilizes one or more cameras to capture images exterior of the vehicle” (Wang et al.; see P[0004]), and in order to “determine if the driver is paying attention to the road or their attention is distracted elsewhere” (MCNEW; see P[0064]), and in order to “provide a safe driving support device or the like for achieving much safer vehicle control” (Terada et al.; see Overview).
Regarding Claim 57, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 56, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system adjusts travel of the vehicle by adjusting speed of the vehicle (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060]).
Regarding Claim 58, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 57, wherein, responsive to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system reduces speed of the vehicle so that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will have sufficient time to move across the forward path of travel of the vehicle before the vehicle arrives where the forward path of travel of the vehicle intersects the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060]).
Regarding Claim 64, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 56, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system, responsive at least in part to prediction by the vehicular collision avoidance system that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses (“…the CPU 11 compares the collision probability with a threshold set in advance (step S440). When judged that the collision probability is the threshold or higher (YES at step S440), the CPU 11 generates an automatic braking actuation instruction…”, see P[0060] and “…the collision mitigation controller 10 actuates an actuator to avoid collision”, see P[0066]), adjusts travel of the vehicle based at least in part on a driving condition of the vehicle (“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]).
Regarding Claim 65, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 64, wherein the driving condition pertains to current traction of the vehicle (“…for the collision probability, numerous correction coefficients are calculated based on the above-described crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]), where a vehicle speed “pertains” to the “current traction” of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 69, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 64, wherein the driving condition pertains to a current geographical location of the vehicle (“…whether or not the pedestrian detected the captured image will cross in front of the own vehicle is determined based on whether or not a parameter value (such as the relative speed, the relative distance, or the amount of lateral movement) related to the positional relationship between the pedestrian and the own vehicle meets the reference condition set in advance”, see P[0055]).
Regarding Claim 70, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 64, wherein the driving condition of the vehicle pertains to the vehicle being at a location selected from the group consisting of (i) a highway location, (ii) an in city location, (iii) an out of city location, (iv) a residential location and (v) an off road location (see FIG. 4), where clearly the steps of the invention of Minemura et al. may be performed at any location where a road, vehicle and pedestrian may exist as depicted in FIG. 4, and where clearly a road such as seen in FIG. 4 is either in a city or out of a city.
Regarding Claim 71, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 56, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system predicts where the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be along the projected path of travel of the vulnerable road user (VRU) when the vehicle time to intersection elapses based at least in part on processing of image data captured by the forward-viewing camera (“The various sensors 30 include, for example, a camera sensor 31…”, see P[0021] and “The collision mitigation controller 10 runs a program that is stored in the ROM 12, based on the detection results from the various sensors 30…collision mitigation controller 10 thereby performs various processes, such as a collision mitigation process, described hereafter”, see P[0025], and “…the CPU 11 acquires the latest information on the position of the target object detected by the camera sensor 31..”, see P[0029] and “…the relative speed to the target object (step S200). The relative speed can be determined from the Doppler Effect that occurs when the radar sensor 32 detects the target object, or from the position history of the target object (relative movement trajectory)”, see P[0032] and “…crossing determination result, collision time, speed of the moving object, speed of the own vehicle or relative speed, positional relationship, and the like”, see P[0058]).
Claims 59 and 61-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755).
Regarding Claim 59, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 56, wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip.
However, P[0045] of the specification of the present application recites Applicant admitted prior art of an “image processing chip”, as seen in “For example, the image processor may comprise an EYEQ2 or EYEQ3 image processing chip available from Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd. of Jerusalem, Israel, and may include object detection software (such as the types described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,855,755; 7,720,580 and/or 7,038,577, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entireties)”, where Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al. (7,855,755) will be used as the particular prior art applied to this claim rejection, see col.52, particularly lines 35-62 of Weller et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al., and wherein the image processor comprises an image processing chip, as rendered obvious by Applicant admitted prior art Weller et al., in order to provide an “image processor and forward facing camera” (Weller et al., see col.52, particularly lines 35-62).
Regarding Claim 61, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 59, wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a pedestrian (“The target object is, for example, a pedestrian…”, see P[0021]).
Regarding Claim 62, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 59, wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a cyclist (“…a bicycle…”, see P[0030]).
Regarding Claim 63, Minemura et al. teaches the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 59, wherein the vulnerable road user (VRU) is a motorcyclist (“…a motorcycle…”, see P[0030]).
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Weller et al. (7,855,755), further in view of Yopp (8,788,176).
Regarding Claim 60, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 59, wherein, responsive to determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system generates an alert to the driver of the vehicle.
However, Minemura et al. does teach a collision mitigation controller that may issue a warning (“The collision mitigation controller 10 performs such processes and operates the controlled subject 40 based on the processing results of the processes. The controlled subject 40 includes, for example, an actuator that drives a braking, a steering, a seatbelt or the like, and a warning device that issues a warning”, see P[0026]).
Furthermore, Yopp (8,788,176) teaches a vehicle collision warning system that generates a warning signal based on a time-to-impact (Yopp; “DAS system 30 may be comprised of a forward collision warning (FCW) system wherein actuator 31 comprises a perceptible warning generator such as an audio speaker generating warning tones or a visual display element for generating a flashing light or message. The perceptible warning signal alerts the driver of the predicted impact so that the driver can take evasive action”, see col.3, particularly lines 61-67 and col.4, particularly lines 1-11 and “…vehicle 25 employs an update module 35 for monitoring various aspects of the driving conditions and updating the time-to-impact threshold used by DAS 30…each one provides an incremental offset to be added to the default threshold to increase the magnitude of the threshold time and thereby increase the corresponding intrusion zone (the violation of which triggers the driver assistance action)”, see col.4, particularly lines 12-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Yopp, and wherein, responsive to determination that the vulnerable road user (VRU) will be in the forward path of travel of the vehicle when the vehicle time to intersection elapses, the vehicular collision avoidance system generates an alert to the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Yopp, in order to “take a driver assistance action in response to a predicted impact with an approaching object according to a time-to-impact threshold” (Yopp; see Abstract).
Claims 66 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Bonne (2009/0287368).
Regarding Claim 66, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 64, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire pressure, (ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature.
However, Bonne (2009/0287368) teaches setting a trigger threshold for braking based on a vehicle load (Bonne; “…this may be an altered load, which may be established via sensors on the springs and shock absorbers, an increased load resulting in a lengthening of the braking distance”, see P[0013] and P[0019]-P[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Bonne, and wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire pressure, (ii) vehicle load and (iii) brake temperature, as rendered obvious by Bonne, in order to provide “a motor vehicle of the type cited at the beginning, whose active and passive traffic safety is increased by an improved driver assistance system” (Bonne; see P[0007]).
Regarding Claim 67, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 64, wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip.
However, Bonne (2009/0287368) teaches setting a trigger threshold for braking based on tire wear (Bonne; “Information in regard to the temperature and/or the wear or the operating time of the tires may also be taken into consideration”, see P[0011] and P[0019]-P[0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Bonne, and wherein the driving condition pertains to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) tire wear, (ii) tire age, (iii) brake wear and (iv) tire slip, as rendered obvious by Bonne, in order to provide “a motor vehicle of the type cited at the beginning, whose active and passive traffic safety is increased by an improved driver assistance system” (Bonne; see P[0007]).
Claim 68 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Inoue et al. (2008/0243389).
Regarding Claim 68, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 64, wherein the driving condition comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) ambient temperature at the vehicle, (ii) a weather condition, (iii) the current date and (iv) the current season.
However, Inoue et al. (2008/0243389) teaches vehicle collision avoidance equipment and method, where a safety keeping area surrounding a vehicle is calculated, and when it is detected or predicted that a pedestrian or another vehicle intrudes or is about to intrude into the safety keeping area, an alarm may be output (Inoue et al.; “…a safety keeping area is calculated…When it is detected or predicted by an other vehicle safety keeping area intrusion detector 107 that the other vehicle intrudes or will intrude into the safety keeping area…the alarm may be output”, see P[0029]), where the size of the safety keeping area may be defined based on various information such as date, time and weather information (Inoue et al.; “The vehicle position velocity traveling direction detector 104 may provide in addition to the above information, local information such as date, time, school zone, characteristic of city, town or country, weather, dangerous point or area caused by construction or known from experience and so forth. The safety keeping area extension calculator 106 may determine the safety keeping area on the basis of the above information. For example, the safety keeping area is enlarged in response to the information of the school zone” (emphasis added), see P[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Inoue et al., and wherein the driving condition comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) ambient temperature at the vehicle, (ii) a weather condition, (iii) the current date and (iv) the current season, as rendered obvious by Inoue et al., in order to determine a safety keeping area related to an alarm based on weather information (Inoue et al.; see P[0035]) and for a movable body such as an automobile, to provide for “preventing a collision between the movable body and the object and outputting an alarm, when deciding the at least one of that the object is within the safety keeping area and that the object will be within the safety keeping area” (Inoue et al.; see Abstract).
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Kajiwara (5,432,509).
Regarding Claim 72, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 56, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle.
However, Kajiwara (5,432,509) teaches determining attentiveness of a driver of a vehicle by determining drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle (Kajiwara; “A warning apparatus for a vehicle generates a warning for a driver of the vehicle when the separation between the vehicle and an obstacle located in front of the vehicle falls below a prescribed value. The prescribed value is varied in accordance with changes in the physical or mental state of the driver of the vehicle”, see Abstract and col.2, particularly lines 42-67 and “The driver condition sensor 4 can be a device which senses when the driver is tired, napping, or looking away from the road, or it can sense any other condition in which the driver's reaction time is expected to be impaired”, see col.3, particularly lines 1-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Kajiwara, and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining drowsiness of the driver of the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Kajiwara, in order to “adjust to changes in the driver's reaction time and the stopping distance of the vehicle” (Kajiwara; see Abstract).
Claims 73 and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minemura et al. (2014/0324330) in view of Wang et al. (WO2013123161A1) further in view MCNEW (2016/0009175), further in view of Terada et al. (JP2012173803A), further in view of Do et al. (2015/0375756).
Regarding Claim 73, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 56, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining volume of music in the vehicle.
However, Do et al. (2015/0375756) teaches collecting data of a music or noise level in a vehicle, and identifying distractions such as a noise level in a vehicle (Do et al.; see P[0030] and P[0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Do et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining volume of music in the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Do et al., in order to provide for “determining vehicle accident risk” (Do et al.; see Abstract), and in order to determine a “dangerous roadway risk” based on “distractions identified in the vehicle” (Do et al.; see P[0040]).
Regarding Claim 74, Minemura et al. does not expressly recite the claimed vehicular collision avoidance system of claim 56, wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle.
However, Do et al. (2015/0375756) teaches collecting data of a current phone or device usage by a driver, and identifying distractions such as mobile phone usage (Do et al.; see P[0030], P[0035] and P[0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Minemura et al. with the teachings of Do et al., and wherein the vehicular collision avoidance system at least in part determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle by determining use by the driver of a cellphone in the vehicle, as rendered obvious by Do et al., in order to provide for “determining vehicle accident risk” (Do et al.; see Abstract), and in order to determine a “dangerous roadway risk” based on “distractions identified in the vehicle” (Do et al.; see P[0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662