DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18/506,550 filed on 11/10/2023 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final office action on 07/16/2025.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 09/26/2025. Claims 1, 12 and 16 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103: Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 with respect to Tanaka et al. (US20200384916A1) in view of Kameo et al. (US20210261136A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka relates to a reactionary system in which sound levels are restored in response to operator acknowledgment (¶ 71). Additionally, the reactionary system in Tanaka can be set based on whether the experience level of the driver is, or is not, equal to or above a preset evaluation value (¶ 78). However, the reactionary system of Tanaka does not, and cannot, teach or suggest features relating to generation of a signal to adjust an operation of a sound emission device, wherein the signal is configured using historical information of prior operator responses and results relating to previously detected objects.
However, this argument is not persuasive, Tanaka explicitly teaches configuring the signal to adjust (reduce/attenuate) the sound level using historical information in the form of the driver’s evaluation value of driving skill and years of driving experience: “The driver information 156 is information that holds various kinds of information about the driver 1. For example, the driver information 156 includes years of driving experience, an evaluation value of driving skill, and the like of the driver 1.” (Tanaka, ¶ [0057]).
“The output control unit 163 determines whether the driver 1 is an experienced driver by referring to the driver information 156. The output control unit 163 determines that the driver 1 is an experienced driver when an evaluation value of the driver information 156 is equal to or higher than a predetermined evaluation value. At the time when an object is detected and the output of the stationary sound is to be attenuated, the output control unit 163 decreases the attenuation amount of the output, of the stationary sound when the driver 1 is an experienced driver.”(Tanaka, ¶ [0078]).
“FIG. 8 is a diagram for explaining an attenuation amount of the stationary sound. For example, during when an object is not detected, the intensity of the stationary sound to be output from the speaker 13 is P 1. When an object is detected and the driver 1 is not an experienced driver (beginner driver), the intensity of the stationary sound subjected to attenuation is P 2. When an object is detected and the driver 1 is an experienced driver, the intensity of the stationary sound subjected to attenuation is P 3. As described above, by making a difference between before and after attenuation small when the driver 1 is an experienced driver, the pressure on the driver 1 can be reduced.”(Tanaka, ¶ [0079]).
These passages from Tanaka disclose that the degree of sound level reduction (attenuation amount) is configured using historical information such as “years of driving experience” and “an evaluation value of driving skill” (¶ [0057], [0078]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the evaluation value of driving skill constitutes historical information of prior operator responses and results, as driving skill is derived from past performance and responses in driving scenarios, including relating to detected objects (e.g., risks or obstacles as described throughout Tanaka). The signal is thus configured (e.g., decreased attenuation for experienced drivers) based on this historical data when generating the adjustment in response to object detection.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka relates to a passive system in which the output control unit 163 determines whether the driver has recognized the object, such as by determining when a line of sight of the driver 1 is directed to the direction of the detected object (¶¶ 80, 81). Thus, Tanaka relates to a passive system in which the output control unit 163 determines when the driver has recognized a risk. Yet such a passive system neither teaches nor suggests features relating to use of receipt of acknowledgement from an operator.
However, this argument is not persuasive, Tanaka explicitly teaches increasing/returning the sound level in direct response to receipt of an acknowledgement by the operator (via detected line of sight indicating recognition): “After performing the processing of attenuating the stationary sound and the processing of outputting the environmental sound described above, the output control unit 163 determines whether the driver 1 has recognized the object (risk) based on the driver video information of the driver video buffer 153 . When the driver 1 has recognized the object, the output control unit 163 outputs a control command to the speaker 13 to perform processing of returning back to the original stationary sound from the attenuated stationary sound.”(Tanaka, ¶ [0080]).
“For example, the output control unit 163 analyzes the driver video information to detect a direction of a line of sight of the driver 1 . The output control unit 163 determines that the driver 1 has recognized the object when a line of sight of the driver 1 is directed to the direction of the detected object. The output control unit 163 may determine whether the driver has recognized the object by using other determination policies.”(Tanaka, ¶ [0081]).
The claim language requires only “receipt of an acknowledgement signal indicative of an acknowledgement by the operator of the reduction in the sound level.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of “acknowledgement by the operator” includes the operator directing their line of sight toward the object, which generates a signal (from the driver video information) that the system receives and uses as the trigger for generating the return/increase command (¶ [0080]).
The claim does not exclude passive detection methods like line-of-sight analysis as a form of receiving an acknowledgement signal, nor does it require an active manual input from the operator. Thus, Tanaka anticipates the limitation as written.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-5, 9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US20200384916A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 16, Tanaka discloses An object intelligence detection system for providing a notification of a detected object to an operator of a work vehicle (“the driving assistance apparatus 100 is connected to the camera 11 (cameras 11 a to 11 d), the microphone 12 (microphones 12 a to 12 d), the speaker 13 (13 a to 13 d), the inner camera 14, the vibrator 15 (15 a, 15 b), and a vehicle-information detecting device 25.” [0100]),
the object intelligence detection system comprising:
at least one sensor configured to provide a captured information indicative of a presence of the detected object at a location outside of the work vehicle (“The driving assistance apparatus 100 detects a state of the surroundings of the vehicle 10 based on the video information received from the camera 11. When detecting an object …..” [0035]);
a sound emission device that generates or emits a sound that is detectable by the operator in an operator cab associated with the work vehicle (“Around the driver 1 aboard at a driver's seat of the vehicle 10, plural speakers 13 a to 14 d and an inner camera 14 are arranged. Furthermore, on a steering wheel at the driver's seat, vibrators 15 a, 15 b are arranged. The microphones 12 a to 12 d are one example of a sound collecting device. The speakers 13 a to 13 d are one example of a sound source.” [0028]);
at least one processor (component 204, see also {Par. 0132]);
and a memory device (206) coupled to the at least one processor (204), the memory device(206) including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor (204) cause the at least one processor to:
detect, from at least the captured information, the presence of the detected object (“e driving assistance apparatus 100 may detect an object from the surroundings of the vehicle 10 by using a distance sensor or the like, and may detect an object by comparing the position information of the vehicle 10 with map data.” [0127]);
and generate, in response to at least the detection of the presence of the detected object, a signal to adjust an operation of the sound emission device in to reduce a sound level within the operator cab (108) (“When detecting an object in an upward direction, a downward direction, a leftward direction, and a rightward direction, the driving assistance apparatus 100 attenuates the output of the stationary sound in a direction toward the pilot from the object in the field of the stationary sound.” [0128]), wherein the signal is configured using historical information of prior operator responses and results relating to previously detected objects (Tanaka teaches configuring the signal to adjust (reduce/attenuate) the sound level using historical information in the form of the driver’s evaluation value of driving skill and years of driving experience: “The driver information 156 is information that holds various kinds of information about the driver 1. For example, the driver information 156 includes years of driving experience, an evaluation value of driving skill, and the like of the driver 1.” (Tanaka, ¶ [0057] see also [0078, 0079]).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 1, wherein the signal adjusts the operation of at least one of an engine fan of a prime mover of the work vehicle and a blower of a heating and air condition system of the work vehicle(“The vehicle-information detecting device 20 is a device that detects vehicle information, such as position information, speed information, acceleration information of the vehicle 10, whether brakes are applied, steering angle information of the steering wheel, and whether the engine of the vehicle 10 is started. The vehicle-information detecting device 20 outputs the vehicle information every certain time to the driving assistance apparatus 100.” See at least [0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 1, wherein the signal adjusts the operation of at least one of a radio of the work vehicle and a speaker of the work vehicle (“the driving assistance apparatus 100 attenuates the output of the stationary sound toward the driver 1 from the direction of the object 2. Moreover, after attenuating the output of the stationary sound, the driving assistance apparatus 100 outputs, from the speaker 13, the environmental sound in a direction of the object based on the environmental sound information received from the microphone 12.” [0035]).
Regarding claims 4, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 1, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to generate, in response to a receipt of an acknowledgement signal indicative of an acknowledgement by the operator of the reduction in the sound level, a signal to increase the sound level within the operator above the reduced sound level (“When the driver 1 has recognized the object, the output control unit 163 outputs a control command to the speaker 13 to perform processing of returning back to the original stationary sound from the attenuated stationary sound.” [0080]).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 1, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: determine a location of the detected object (“As illustrated in FIG. 7, it is supposed that an object is detected at a position (x, y, z), and the driver 1 is positioned at a position (xd, yd, zd). The output control unit 163 identifies a line segment L1 that connects the position (x, y, z) and the position (xd, yd, zd). The output control unit 163 identifies line segments connecting positions of the respective speakers 13 a to 13 d, and the position (xd, yd, zd) based on the arrangement information 155.” [0072]);
and determine the reduced sound level, the reduced sound level being variable based at least in part on the determined location of the detected object (“when an object is detected, the output control unit 163 acquires the detection result from the detecting unit 162, and controls to reduce the output of the stationary sound toward the driver 1 from a direction in which the object is detected.” [0071]).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 1, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine, based on a feedback information that indicates an actual sound level within the operator cab, a signal to at least one of (a) readjust the operation of the sound emission device to further reduce the actual sound level within the operator cab, and (b) adjust the operation of an additional sound emission device to further reduce the actual sound level within the operator cab (“when an object is not detected, the intensity of the stationary sound to be output from the speaker 13 is P1. When an object is detected and the driver 1 is not an experienced driver (beginner driver), the intensity of the stationary sound subjected to attenuation is P2. When an object is detected and the driver 1 is an experienced driver, the intensity of the stationary sound subjected to attenuation is P3. As described above, by making a difference between before and after attenuation small when the driver 1 is an experienced driver, the pressure on the driver 1 can be reduced.” [0079]).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to capture information in the form of at least a detection signal emitted from a detected device outside of the work vehicle (“The driving assistance apparatus 100 collects sound in surroundings of the vehicle 10 by using the microphone 12 arranged on an exterior of the vehicle 10.” [0093]).
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 13, further comprising: a second senor system configured to sense a second captured information (“The interface unit 110 outputs the video information acquired from the camera 11 to the control unit 160.” [0041]);
and a second sound emission device configured for an operation in a manner that generates or emits a second sound that is detectable by the operator in the operator cab (“Around the driver 1 aboard at a driver's seat of the vehicle 10, plural speakers 13 a to 14 d and an inner camera 14 are arranged. Furthermore, on a steering wheel at the driver's seat, vibrators 15 a, 15 b are arranged. The microphones 12 a to 12 d are one example of a sound collecting device. The speakers 13 a to 13 d are one example of a sound source.” [0028]),
wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: detect, from at least the second captured information, a detected object (“The driving assistance apparatus 100 detects a state of the surroundings of the vehicle 10 based on the video information received from the camera 11.” [0035]);
and generate, in response to at least the detection of the detected object, a second signal to adjust the operation of the second sound emission device in a manner that reduces the first reduced sound level within the operator cab to a second reduced sound level (“When detecting an object while outputting the stationary sound from the speaker 13, the driving assistance apparatus 100 attenuates the output of the stationary sound toward the driver 1 from the direction of the object 2.” [0035]).
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 12, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: receive an acknowledgment signal indicative of an acknowledgment by the operator of the reduction of the sound level to the first sound level (“Thus, the output control unit 163 reduces the output of the stationary sound toward the driver 1 from the direction in which the object is detected in the field of the stationary sound.” [0074])
and generate, in response to receipt of the acknowledgment signal, a signal to increase the sound level above the first sound level (“When the driver 1 has recognized the object, the output control unit 163 outputs a control command to the speaker 13 to perform processing of returning back to the original stationary sound from the attenuated stationary sound.” [0080]).
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 16, wherein the sensor system is an optical sensor system (“The cameras 11 a to 11 d are cameras to take video around the vehicle 10. It is explained using the cameras 11 a to 11 d in this example, but another camera may be further used to take videos around the vehicle 10. The cameras 11 a to 11 d output information of the video taken thereby to the driving assistance apparatus 100.” [0030]).
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 16, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to retrieve the project map from an external secondary device (“The driving assistance apparatus 100 may detect an object from the surroundings of the vehicle 10 by using a distance sensor or the like, and may detect an object by comparing the position information of the vehicle 10 with map data.” [0127]).
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 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Kameo et al. (US20210261136A1), hereinafter referred to as Tanaka and Kameo respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 1,
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine the detected object has a protected status, and wherein the generation of the signal to adjust the operation of the sound emission device is further based at least in part on the detected object having the protected status.
However, Kameo does teach wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine the detected object has a protected status, and wherein the generation of the signal to adjust the operation of the sound emission device is further based at least in part on the detected object having the protected status (“Then an object that may be an obstacle, such as a person or luggage, is detected around a vehicle, the vehicle notifies the driver that the object has been detected, regardless of whether or not the driver recognizes the object. Then, a case is also considered in which, when the driver is notified, the driver actually recognizes the object and the degree of risk is low. In a case in which this notification is repeated, the driver may be accustomed to the notification.” [0004]). Both Tanaka and Kameo teach methods for determining and controlling sounds levels during different modes of vehicle operation. However, Kameo explicitly teaches wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine the detected object has a protected status, and wherein the generation of the signal to adjust the operation of the sound emission device is further based at least in part on the detected object having the protected status.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound control method of Tanaka to also include wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine the detected object has a protected status, and wherein the generation of the signal to adjust the operation of the sound emission device is further based at least in part on the detected object having the protected status, as taught by Kameo, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information to the operator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Kameo, 0004-0010]).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 1,
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a detection of a gesture made by the detected object
However, Kameo does teach wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a detection of a gesture made by the detected object (“For example, the second detection unit 413 specifies the orientation of the face, or the orientation of the face and the orientation of the eyes by acquiring the image of the face of the person and performs image analysis.” [0131]). Both Tanaka and Kameo teach methods for determining and controlling sounds levels during different modes of vehicle operation. However, Kameo explicitly teaches wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a detection of a gesture made by the detected object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound control method of Tanaka to also include wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a detection of a gesture made by the detected object, as taught by Kameo, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information to the operator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Kameo, 0004-0010]).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 1,
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a movement by the detected object
However, Kameo does teach wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a movement by the detected object (“the third detection unit 415 acquires the image of the entire person. Actual result information indicating the actual movement result of the person is associated with each image of the entire person acquired by the third detection unit 415.” [0172]). Both Tanaka and Kameo teach methods for determining and controlling sounds levels during different modes of vehicle operation. However, Kameo explicitly teaches wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a movement by the detected object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound control method of Tanaka to also include wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a movement by the detected object, as taught by Kameo, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information to the operator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Kameo, 0004-0010]).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka discloses The system of claim 1,
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: determine a location of the detected object is within a predetermined distance of the work vehicle and generate, in response to the determination the detected object is within the predetermined distance, a supplementary signal to activate an output device of the work vehicle, the output device comprising at least one of an illumination device and a haptic feedback device
However, Kameo does teach wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: determine a location of the detected object is within a predetermined distance of the work vehicle (“The position of the object with respect to the industrial vehicle 1 is represented by the direction and distance of the object with respect to the industrial vehicle 1.” [0044]);
and generate, in response to the determination the detected object is within the predetermined distance, a supplementary signal to activate an output device of the work vehicle, the output device comprising at least one of an illumination device and a haptic feedback device (“detecting a position of an object that is a possible obstacle to a vehicle; detecting a direction of a line of sight of a driver of the vehicle; deciding an aspect of an alarm on the basis of the position and the direction of the line of sight of the driver; and controlling a speaker corresponding to the position such that a sound of the aspect is output.” [0008]). Both Tanaka and Kameo teach methods for determining and controlling sounds levels during different modes of vehicle operation. However, Kameo explicitly teaches determining a location of the detected object is within a predetermined distance of the work vehicle and generate, in response to the determination the detected object is within the predetermined distance, a supplementary signal to activate an output device of the work vehicle, the output device comprising at least one of an illumination device and a haptic feedback device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound control method of Tanaka to also include determining a location of the detected object is within a predetermined distance of the work vehicle and generate, in response to the determination the detected object is within the predetermined distance, a supplementary signal to activate an output device of the work vehicle, the output device comprising at least one of an illumination device and a haptic feedback device., as taught by Kameo, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information to the operator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Kameo, 0004-0010]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/AA/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights