DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This action is in response to the filing of the Arguments and the After Final on 06/09/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/09/2026 with respect to all claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. This rejection is Final.
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 1 – 20 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.
The claims were amended to replace bicycle with travelling object. However, the specification teaches a bicycle and a cyclist. There is no support for a “travelling object” nor is there support for anything other than a bicycle being the vulnerable user. In the instant application, see p0078, even an object is described as a bicycle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5, 11 – 13 and 5are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GYU (KR20180023328) in view of Moustafa (US 20220126864).
Claim 1, Gyu discloses a method performed by at least one processor of a system in a first vehicle configured to mitigate a collision between the first vehicle and an object that is in proximity to the first vehicle, the method comprising: obtaining, from at least one onboard sensor, environmental information around the first vehicle [p0006 and p0062 – teaching a computer program having a first and a second vehicle for avoiding collisions with obstacles];
obtaining, from the environmental information, first information associated with the travelling object, wherein the first information comprises one or more of a position of the travelling object, a type of the travelling object and a type of a cyclist who is riding the travelling object [see p0028 - the first vehicle 10 requests the server 30 for the obstacle information in the rectangular area corresponding to the current position on the route to the destination and receives the obstacle information corresponding thereto from the server 30. At this time, when the obstacle information is requested to the server 30, the first vehicle 10 transmits its own unique ID, GPS coordinates, speed, route information, public key, electronic signature, etc. together. In addition, the rectangular area corresponding to the current location means a rectangular area within the area spaced a certain distance in the traveling direction from the position of the first vehicle 10.
receiving, from a second vehicle, second information associated with the travelling object, wherein the second information comprises information captured by one or more onboard sensors of the second vehicle [see p0016 - p0017 - the second vehicle detects moving obstacles in a rectangular area covered by the second vehicle at the time of the first vehicle based on various sensors. Here, the various sensors may be any one of an ultrasonic sensor, a camera, a radar, and a lidar; the second vehicle transmitting the detected obstacle information to the first vehicle; avoiding collision with an obstacle after calculating a possibility of collision with the obstacle based on the obstacle information transmitted by the first vehicle];
predicting a trajectory of the travelling object according to the first information and the second information; determining, based on the predicted trajectory, a risk of collision between the first vehicle and the travelling object [see at least p0038 – p0040- the server 30 predicts the possibility of collision between the first vehicle 10 and the obstacle based on the obstacle information (position, movement direction, speed, etc.) received from the second vehicle 20, To the first vehicle (10). At this time, the server 30 provides the first vehicle 10 with the obstacle information (position, moving direction, speed, etc.) received from the second vehicle 20]; and
providing, to a driver of the first vehicle, a feedback according to the risk of collision and the predicted trajectory [see p0056 – p0060 and Fig 4, the first vehicle 10 requests an obstacle detection by the second vehicle 20 that is stopped around the road on the driving route through the V2V communication (401). Thereafter, the second vehicle 20 detects 402 a moving obstacle in a rectangular area covered by the second vehicle 20 at the viewpoint of the first vehicle 10, based on various sensors. Typically, pedestrians traveling in the road direction across the front of the second vehicle 20 are representative moving obstacles 310. Thereafter, the second vehicle 20 transmits the detected obstacle information to the first vehicle 10 (403)].
Gyu does not specifically discuss that the obstacle is a type of a cyclist who is riding the travelling object.
However, Moustafa teaches control of the vehicle is automated based on at least a portion of the sensor data generated by the first set of sensors. Passenger attributes of one or more passengers within the autonomous vehicles are determined from sensor data generated by the second set of sensors. Attributes of the vehicle are modified based on the passenger attributes and the sensor data generated by the first set of sensors. Additionally teaching, autonomous driving capabilities facilitated through in-vehicle computing systems with logic implemented in hardware, firmware, and/or software to enable respective autonomous driving stacks. Such autonomous driving stacks may allow vehicles to self-control or provide driver assistance to detect roadways, navigate from one point to another, detect other vehicles and road actors (e.g., pedestrians (e.g., 135), bicyclists, etc.), detect obstacles and hazards (e.g., 120), and road conditions (e.g., traffic, road conditions, weather conditions, etc.), and adjust control and guidance of the vehicle accordingly. Such functionality may be used, for instance, to detect objects such as other vehicles, pedestrians, wildlife, cyclists, etc. moving within an environment, which may affect the path of the vehicle on a roadway, among other example uses [see p0166, p0177 and p0292].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in GYU to include that the obstacle is a type of a cyclist who is riding the travelling object, as suggested and taught by Moustafa with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a technique for avoiding a collision with a vehicle and an obstacle, no matter what the obstacle is, thereby, avoiding accidents and collisions.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected as Claim 1, see above.
Claim 2, Gyu discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the feedback comprises an alert of a potential collision between the first vehicle and the travelling object [see p0018, second vehicle may notify the first vehicle through the emergency light or the horn without transmitting the obstacle information
Claim 12 is similarly rejected as Claim 2, see above.
Claim 3, Gyu discloses the method according to claim 2, comprising: providing, to a third vehicle, one or more of: the first information and the alert of the potential collision [see p0014 and p0017, step of registering the plurality of vehicles includes generating the vehicle list based on the unique ID, the GPS coordinates, and the sensor information transmitted from the plurality of vehicles; additionally Gyu teaches information can be sent to a first, second vehicle therefore it is capable of providing information to a third vehicle].
Claim 13 is similarly rejected as Claim 3, see above.
Claim 5, Gyu discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one onboard sensor comprises a camera, and wherein the environmental information comprises at least one image captured by the camera [see p0016 - second vehicle detects moving obstacles in a rectangular area covered by the second vehicle at the time of the first vehicle based on various sensors. Here, the various sensors may be any one of an ultrasonic sensor, a camera, a radar, and a lidar].
Claim 15 is similarly rejected as Claim 5, see above.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GYU (KR20180023328) in view of Moustafa (US 0220126864), and Esselink (US 11189173 B1).
Claim 4, Gyu discloses the method according to claim 2, but is silent to further comprising: providing, to a device associated with a person travelling using a travelling object, the alert of the potential collision.
However, Esselink discloses where a proximity alerting system 100. A transceiver in a vehicle receives an alert signal transmitted by a transceiver provided on a personal transportation device (a bicycle, a motorcycle, a moped, a scooter, etc.) that is close to the vehicle. A driver of the vehicle may be made aware of the alert by a sound that is produced through a speaker system of the vehicle (for example, a ringing sound produced by a bicycle bell or a beep of a motorcycle horn) [see Col 1, ll. 60 – 67].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Gyu as modified to include providing, to a device associated with the cyclist of the bicycle, the alert of the potential collision, as suggested and taught by Esselink, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a desirable solution that promotes friendly interaction between a driver of a vehicle and a rider of a two-wheeled vehicle such as bicycle.
Claim 14 is similarly rejected as Claim 4, see above.
Clam 7, Gyu discloses the method according to claim 1, but is silent to wherein the providing the feedback comprises: generating, based on the risk of collision, a graphical user interface (GUI) including a visual alert; and presenting, to the driver via a display in the first vehicle, the GUI.
However, Esselink discloses a proximity alerting system 100 which provides one or more devices provided in an example vehicle 105 and in an example bicycle 160, in order to prevent a vehicular mishap between the vehicle 105 and the bicycle 160, and/or in order to avoid an undesirable interaction between a driver 125 of the vehicle 105 and a rider 155 of the bicycle 160; the proximity alerting apparatus 115 may communicate with the infotainment system 120 to display a visual alert such as, for example, in the form of a graphic and/or text on a display screen of the infotainment system 120. An example graphic may be an image having icons of the vehicle 105 and the bicycle 160 [see Col 6, ll.18 – 24].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Gyu as modified to include providing, the feedback comprises: generating, based on the risk of collision, a graphical user interface (GUI) including a visual alert; and presenting, to the driver via a display in the first vehicle, the GUI, as suggested and taught by Esselink, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a desirable solution that promotes friendly interaction between a driver of a vehicle and a rider of a two-wheeled vehicle such as bicycle.
Claim 17 is similarly rejected as Claim 7, see above.
Claim 8, Gyu discloses the method according to claim 1, but is silent to wherein the providing the feedback comprises: generating, based on the risk of collision, an auditory alert; and presenting, to the driver via a speaker in the first vehicle, the auditory alert.
However, Esselink discloses in another example scenario, the proximity alerting apparatus 115 of the vehicle 105 may convey information (commands, instructions, data, signals etc.) to other components in vehicle, such as, for example, the infotainment system 120. In an example implementation, the proximity alerting apparatus 115 may communicate with the infotainment system 120 (either directly or via the vehicle controller 110) to produce various types of sounds through an audio system. The audio system may include a single speaker (or beeper) or may include multiple speakers (speakers 130a-d, for example) [see Fig.1 and Col. 5, ll. 1 – 11].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Gyu as modified, to include wherein the providing the feedback comprises: generating, based on the risk of collision, an auditory alert; and presenting, to the driver via a speaker in the first vehicle, the auditory alert, as suggested and taught by Esselink, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a system for preventing vehicle collisions or mishaps with bicycles and other VRU’s, which promotes safety and courtesy of vehicles on the same road.
Claim 18 is similarly rejected as Claim 8, see above.
Claim 9, Gyu discloses the method according to claim 1, but is silent to further comprising: comparing the risk of collision with a previous risk of collision; based on determining that the risk of collision is higher than the previous risk of collision, increasing an intensity of the feedback; and based on determining that the risk of collision is lower than the previous risk of collision, decreasing the intensity of the feedback.
However, Esselink discloses systems and methods to prevent mishaps involving vehicles and personal transportation devices. In an example method, a transceiver in a vehicle receives an alert signal transmitted by a transceiver provided on a personal transportation device [see Col 1, ll, 59 – 64].
Further disclosing, the driver 125 may interpret the intensity characteristic of the sound produced through the speaker(s) to identify a location of the bicycle 160 with respect to the vehicle 105. A first sound having a high intensity can indicate a smaller separation distance between the vehicle 105 and the bicycle 160 in comparison to a second sound having a lower intensity which indicates a greater separation distance between the vehicle 105 and the bicycle 160 [see Col 5, line 62 – Col 6, line 4].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Gyu as modified, to include further comprising: comparing the risk of collision with a previous risk of collision; based on determining that the risk of collision is higher than the previous risk of collision, increasing an intensity of the feedback; and based on determining that the risk of collision is lower than the previous risk of collision, decreasing the intensity of the feedback, as suggested and taught by Esselink, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a system for preventing vehicle collisions or mishaps with bicycles and other VRU’s, which promotes safety and courtesy of vehicles on the same road.
Claim 19 is similarly rejected as Claim 9, see above.
Claim 10, Gyu discloses the method according to claim 9, but is silent to wherein the increasing the intensity of the feedback comprises one or more of: increasing a color intensity of a visual alert displayed on a display of the first vehicle, increasing a volume of an auditory alert outputted by a speaker of the first vehicle, and increasing a strength of vibration of a steering wheel of the first vehicle; and wherein the decreasing the intensity of the feedback comprises one or more of: decreasing the intensity of the color of the visual alert, decreasing the volume of the auditory alert, and decreasing the strength of vibration of the steering wheel.
However, Esselink discloses systems and methods to prevent mishaps involving vehicles and personal transportation devices. In an example method, a transceiver in a vehicle receives an alert signal transmitted by a transceiver provided on a personal transportation device [see Col 1, ll, 59 – 64].
Further teaching, the alert signal may be automatically transmitted by the proximity alerting apparatus 115 of the vehicle 105 based on receiving a sensor signal from an object sensor mounted on the vehicle 105. Driver 125 may interpret the intensity characteristic of the sound produced through the speaker(s) to identify a location of the bicycle 160 with respect to the vehicle 105. A first sound having a high intensity can indicate a smaller separation distance between the vehicle 105 and the bicycle 160 in comparison to a second sound having a lower intensity which indicates a greater separation distance between the vehicle 105 and the bicycle 160 [see Col 5, line 62 – Col 6, line 4].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Gyu as modified, to include to wherein the increasing the intensity of the feedback comprises one or more of: increasing a color intensity of a visual alert displayed on a display of the first vehicle, increasing a volume of an auditory alert outputted by a speaker of the first vehicle, and increasing a strength of vibration of a steering wheel of the first vehicle; and wherein the decreasing the intensity of the feedback comprises one or more of: decreasing the intensity of the color of the visual alert, decreasing the volume of the auditory alert, and decreasing the strength of vibration of the steering wheel, suggested and taught by Esselink, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a system for preventing vehicle collisions or mishaps with bicycles and other VRU’s, which promotes safety and courtesy of vehicles on the same road.
Claim 20 is similarly rejected as Claim 10, see above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a GYU (KR20180023328) in view of Moustafa (US 20220126864) and Park (US 20170101056).
Claim 6, Gyu discloses the method according to claim 1, but is silent to wherein the providing the feedback comprises: generating, based on the risk of collision, a steering feedback, wherein the steering feedback comprises at least one of: a steering wheel vibration and a steering guidance away from the bicycle.
Park discloses a vehicle surround monitoring device and, more particularly, to a vehicle, which indicates the risk of a collision with a moving object in the vicinity of the vehicle, and a control method for the same [see p0002].
Further teaching, the vehicle surround monitoring device 100 may execute at least one of a plurality of predetermined functions based on the sub area that overlaps the predicted route of the vehicle surround monitoring device 100. For example, the predetermined functions may include at least one of (i) output of a visual or auditory warning to the driver of the vehicle surround monitoring device 100, (ii) control of the speed-reduction apparatus of the vehicle surround monitoring device 100, (iii) control of the steering apparatus of the vehicle surround monitoring device 100, and (iv) control of the lighting apparatus of the vehicle surround monitoring device 100 [see p0223 and Step S770].
Park teaches, see Fig 25B, the vehicle surround monitoring device 100 may determine whether the indicator 2511 and the indicator 2530 overlap each other, either in real time or periodically, by monitoring the motion characteristics of the bicycle 2510, and may execute a function (control steering apparatus) corresponding to the overlapping portion when the indicator 2511 and the indicator 2530 overlap each other [see p0340 – p0344].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Gyu, to include providing the feedback comprises: generating, based on the risk of collision, a steering feedback, wherein the steering feedback comprises at least one of: a steering wheel vibration and a steering guidance away from the bicycle, as suggested and taught by Park, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a system for preventing vehicle collisions or mishaps with bicycles and other VRU’s, which promotes safety and courtesy of vehicles on the same road.
Claim 16 is similarly rejected as Claim 6, see above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE LAROSE whose telephone number is (313)446-4856. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Renee LaRose/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights