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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-5 have been examined and claim 2 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiley et al. (US 2018/0173237), in view of Sweeney et al. (US 10,493,622)
As per claim 1, Reiley shows an information notification device configured to notify visual information to a rear vehicle located behind a host vehicle that automatically starts and stops (Fig. 1,3-6; Para 6-18 and 37-39),
the host vehicle configured to determine when giving right of way to others other than the host vehicle is performed (Para 20,28-29,37-38,40-41: Reiley discloses a host vehicle control system that detects traffic participants and environmental conditions and determines a vehicle operational state, including yielding behavior, in order to generate appropriate external notifications. Further, Sweeney teaches that an autonomous vehicle determines future vehicle actions based on traffic context and right of way conditions before communicating those actions externally (col. 3, line 22-38; col. 6, line 10-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to configure the host vehicle of Reiley to explicitly determine when it is giving right of way, as such determination is a predictable prerequisite for selecting an appropriate external notification. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.), wherein
the information notification device comprises a notification control unit configured to; notify the rear vehicle that the host vehicle is giving right of way to others via a first display provided in the host vehicle so as to be visually recognized from the rear vehicle (Reiley: Para 216-18,20,28-29; Fig. 1,3-6) in a stop state in which the host vehicle is automatically stopped in order to give the right of way to others (Reiley: Para 37-39,40-41: the host vehicle enters a stop state when yielding to others and activates the external display during that stop state. Additionally, Sweeney: col 5, ln 45-60; col. 7, ln 1-18: teaches that autonomous vehicle actions, including stopping and restarting, are automatically controlled based on determined traffic conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement Reiley’s yielding stop as an automatic stop performed in order to give right of way, as autonomous control of stop behavior is well known and yields predictable results. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.)
and
notify the rear vehicle of a time until the host vehicle starts, via the first display, in the stop state, via an image indicating the time until starting (Reiley: Para 20,28-29,37-39: external displays that communicate vehicle state information to rear vehicles during a stop state. Sweeney: Col 4, ln 30-47; col 6, ln 45-67; Fig 4-6; using an external vehicle display to visually communicate timing information regarding a future vehicle action, including an indication of the amount of time remaining until the vehicle performs the action. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify Reiley’s external display to additional present a visual image indicting a time until the host vehicle starts, as taught by Sweeney, because communicating temporal information regarding future vehicle actions improves predictability for surrounding drivers and represents a predictable use of known di8splay techniques. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way).
The combination of Reiley and Sweeney involves the user of known external vehicle displays to communicate additional well-understand timing information regarding future autonomous vehicle actions wherein both references are directed to external communication of vehicle intent.
As per claim 3, the combination meets limitation of claim and the invention of Reiley further shows wherein the notification control unit is configured to notify the others of a warning via a second display provided in the host vehicle so as to be visually recognized from the front of the host vehicle when the passing of the host vehicle by the rear vehicle is detected in the stop state (Fig. 1, 3-6; Para 21-23,25-28,43,48).
As per claim 4, the invention of Reiley meets the limitation of claim and further shows wherein the notification control unit is configured to notify the rear vehicle that the host vehicle is giving right of way to others by displaying an image generated by a front camera provided in the host vehicle on the first display in the stop state (Fig. 1, 3-6; Para 17).
As per claim 5, it corresponds to claim 1; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
Reiley discloses an information notification method executed by a computer (Para 68), wherein the information notification method includes
determining that a host vehicle should perform giving right of way to others other than the host vehicle (Para 20,28-29,37-38,40-41: Reiley discloses a host vehicle control system that detects traffic participants and environmental conditions and determines a vehicle operational states, including yielding behavior, in order to generate appropriate external notifications. Further, Sweeney teaches that an autonomous vehicle determines future vehicle actions based on traffic context and right of way conditions before communicating those actions externally (col. 3, line 22-38; col. 6, line 10-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to configure the host vehicle of Reiley to explicitly determine when it is giving right of way, as such determination is a predictable prerequisite for selecting an appropriate external notification. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.),
notifying a rear vehicle that the host vehicle is giving right of way to others via a first display provided in the host vehicle so as to be visually recognized from the rear vehicle in a stop state in which the host vehicle is automatically stopped in order to give right of way to the others vehicle (Reiley: Para 216-18,20,28-29; Fig. 1,3-6) in a stop state in which the host vehicle is automatically stopped in order to give the right of way to others (Reiley: Para 37-39,40-41: the host vehicle enters a stop state when yielding to others and activates the external display during that stop state. Additionally, Sweeney: col 5, ln 45-60; col. 7, ln 1-18: teaches that autonomous vehicle actions, including stopping and restarting, are automatically controlled based on determined traffic conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement Reiley’s yielding stop as an automatic stop performed in order to give right of way, as autonomous control of stop behavior is well known and yields predictable results. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.), and
notifying the rear vehicle of a time until the host vehicle starts via an image indicating the time until starting displayed by the first display (Reiley: Para 20,28-29,37-39: external displays that communicate vehicle state information to rear vehicles during a stop state. Sweeney: Col 4, ln 30-47; col 6, ln 45-67; Fig 4-6; using an external vehicle display to visually communicate timing information regarding a future vehicle action, including an indication of the amount of time remaining until the vehicle performs the action. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify Reiley’s external display to additional present a visual image indicting a time until the host vehicle starts, as taught by Sweeney, because communicating temporal information regarding future vehicle actions improves predictability for surrounding drivers and represents a predictable use of known di8splay techniques. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way).
The combination of Reiley and Sweeney involves the user of known external vehicle displays to communicate additional well-understand timing information regarding future autonomous vehicle actions wherein both references are directed to external communication of vehicle intent.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. 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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689