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 .
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 1-10 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.
Specifically, claims 1, 5, and 9 introduce “an output unit” to the claims and claim 5 further limits the output unit reciting that “the output unit includes an audio output unit.” A review of the four corners of the disclosure reveals that the specification and drawings only account for an audio output unit. There is no support for another output unit which further includes the audio output unit within the original written description of the disclosed collision avoidance system.
An additional output unit which also includes an audio output in not described in such a manner to show that Applicant had possession of such a system at the time of effective filing. The amendment to claims 1 and 9 appear to broaden the scope of the invention by broadly reciting “an output” (amended from the previous claims where “an audio output” was recited).
Because the specification provides no standard for defining the newly added, broader “output,” this output could reasonably include non-audio cues (i.e. video, light emitting, signal emitting, Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication, audio, etc. or any combination thereof) as the means for providing collision risk information when given plain meaning by a person having ordinary skill in the vehicle collision avoidance/vehicle control system arts at the time of effective filing.
Claim 5 recites the new output “includes an audio output.” It is unclear as to how the audio output is incorporated into the newly introduced output such that an audio output is included therein. The disclosure does not provide any information defining the newly claimed output, its construction, and what else is/is not included in the output. As such, the Applicant does not have possession of the newly claimed “output.”
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claims.
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 1-10 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.
Specifically, claims 1, 5, and 9 introduce “an output unit” to the claims and claim 5 further limits the output unit reciting that “the output unit includes an audio output unit.” The disclosure does not provide support for the broad claim term “output unit.” There is no support for an output unit, nor an output unit which includes an audio output unit. Because there is no specification support for the output unit, the scope of the term cannot be readily ascertained.
The amendment to claims 1 and 9 appear to broaden the scope of the invention by broadly reciting “an output” (amended from the previous claims where “an audio output” was recited). Because the specification provides no standard for defining the newly added, broader “output,” his output could reasonably include non-audio cues (i.e. video, light emitting, signal emitting, Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication, audio, etc. or any combination thereof) as the means for providing collision risk information when given plain meaning by a person having ordinary skill in the vehicle collision avoidance/vehicle control system arts at the time of effective filing.
The specification also ambiguously recites various lighting that provide light as an outputted waring signal; however, none of the lighting is ascribed to a particular or enumerated output unit. It is unclear as to which unit, structure, or combination of units/structures Applicant may be intending to claim by introducing the “output unit.” As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be readily ascertained.
Claim 5 recites the new output “includes an audio output.” It is unclear as to how the audio output is incorporated into the newly introduced output such that an audio output is included therein. The disclosure does not provide any information defining the newly claimed output, its construction, and what else is/is not included in the output. As such, the claims are deemed indefinite.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017222280 to Fahrenkrog in view of WO2013145984 and in further view of KR20210072184.
Regarding claim 1, Fahrenkrog discloses a system for avoiding a collision between a vehicle and a neighboring object, the system comprising:
a plurality of lamps (At least where the Fahrenkrog translation states: “A second aspect of the invention relates to a warning device for a motor vehicle arranged for automated driving for warning an unprotected road user from a collision with the motor vehicle. Illuminants are provided for the visible to the unprotected road user marking a danger area on the ground in the vicinity of the motor vehicle with light to warn the unprotected road user from a collision with the automated motor vehicle. This is, for example, a matrix of controllable lighting elements, for example a matrix headlight. But it would also headlights with controllable aperture conceivable.”) configured to be installed in the vehicle and to irradiate light to respective divided areas around the vehicle (At least where the Fahrenkrog translation states: “For this purpose, for example, the vehicle 2 surrounding environment area 4 around the vehicle 2 around in a plurality of from vehicle view in different directions facing sectors are subdivided around the motor vehicle, as exemplified in 1b is shown. The sectors can be designed in any size and number. The environment area 4 can the vehicle 2 completely enclose (as in 1a and 1b), The environment area 4 but does not completely enclose the vehicle” along with its other associated parts of the disclosure; Fig. 1a-c);
a speed measurement sensor measuring a speed of the vehicle;
a distance measurement sensor measuring a relative distance between the vehicle and the neighboring object (At least where the Fahrenkrog translation states: “For example, the size of the hazard potential of each distance to the vehicle can be considered. In addition, the vehicle speed can also be taken into account, so that in this way the arrangement of the marking modes is modulated as a function of the vehicle speed.”); and
a controller determining a collision risk area between the vehicle and the neighboring object (At least where Fahrenkrog discloses the control unit; Fig. 1a-c) from among the divided areas based on the measured speed and relative distance (At least where the Fahrenkrog translation states: “In each case, a value of a variable which is characteristic of the danger potential can be determined for different positions of the danger zone and, depending on the respective value, the marking mode can be selected at the respective position. For example, the size of the hazard potential of each distance to the vehicle can be considered. In addition, the vehicle speed can also be taken into account, so that in this way the arrangement of the marking modes is modulated as a function of the vehicle speed. For example, the value of the TTC is calculated for the positions and the individual values are classified in order to assign different marking methods to the individual positions, which are then marked in the assigned marking mode.”), and controlling, among the plurality of lamps, a lamp irradiating light to the collision risk area (At least where the Fahrenkrog translation states: “If the hazard criterion is not met, no danger area is marked on the ground. If, on the other hand, the hazard criterion is fulfilled, the locally closest sector of the surrounding area becomes 4 illuminated so that the danger area the VRU 1 is identified (see step 130 ). The illumination can be done in different colors or patterns. The illumination may be provided by a separate (controllable) illumination source (e.g., matrix lighting elements for illuminating the direct vehicle environment) and / or by the standard vehicle lighting (e.g., an LED matrix headlight).”).
However, Fahrenkrog does not expressly discuss the exact terms speed or distance measurement sensors or an output unit operatively connected to the controller, wherein the controller controls the output unit to change a number of times a notification is provided by the output unit according to a collision risk level.
Nevertheless, WO2013145984 discloses speed and distance measurement sensors (vehicle speed sensor, 25/ radar device, 22) used to provide information to a vehicle CPU to determine risk-related periphery lighting to illuminate objects.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention to have modified the system of Fahrenkrog to have speed/distance sensors, as taught by WO2013145984, in order to allow for more accurate measurements as inputs for the calculations performed in Fahrenkrog regarding speed and distance during risk assessment.
Further, even though Fahrenkrog does not expressly discuss sensors for speed/distance measurements, a PHOSITA would readily recognize that a speed/distance measurement sensing components are likely aboard the vehicle since they are ubiquitous in the vehicle arts, exist within a majority of vehicles, and are well-known, typical components in vehicles and universally used for providing speed information/feedback to a driver during vehicle operation. It is also likely that Fahrenkrog uses speed/distance sensors to carry out the speed/distance measurement aspects of the invention since this is a well-known, typical manner of acquiring speed/distance information, and Fahrenkrog performs speed/distance measurements to establish hazard criteria.
Also, KR20210072184 discloses an output unit operatively connected to the controller, wherein the controller controls the output unit to change a number of times a notification is provided by the output unit according to a collision risk level (At least the disclosed notification unit which leverages multiple types of collision warnings through the notification unit at least including lighting color, blinking, displaying collision risk information, faster flashing speed of the lighting; “As described above, since the risk of collision is a driving intervention during manual driving, when notifying the risk of collision through the lamp display unit 152, the control unit 140 selects a lighting type that can remind the driver and provides the meaning of the warning. You can choose a color that can be conveyed. The notification through the lamp display unit 152 (indoor lighting) may indicate urgency by dividing it into stages. For example, by illuminating in red in stage 1 and flashing at a faster speed than in stage 1 in stage 2, it can give a sense of urgency and remind the driver of the risk of a collision. When the collision risk is notified through the display unit 154, the control unit 140 may briefly guide the collision risk in bold type along with an icon picture that is easy to recognize on the cluster display and HUD that the driver can most easily recognize while driving have” and “In the present invention, when the driving situation is a collision risk detection situation and the autonomous driving intervention information is semi-autonomous driving or manual driving, the control unit sets a different driver warning step according to the location of the object in which the collision risk is detected to notify the driver Provide collision risk recognition information through the unit, but when the object is located more than a set distance from the vehicle, output a step 1 notification through the notification unit, and when the object is located less than a set distance from the vehicle, the notification unit The second stage notification may be output through the notification, the lighting color or blinking speed of the lamp display unit may be changed according to the first stage notification and the second stage notification, and the collision risk recognition information may be displayed on the display unit.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified Fahrenkrog to have an output unit with a controller to warn change the number of times a notification is provided according to a collision risk level, as taught by KR20210072184, in order to allow for improved safety through multiple notifications to the driver internal to the vehicle. The internal lights of KR20210072184 compliment the exterior lighting of Fahrenkrog to ensure that the driver is made aware through multiple means of impending impact risk.
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination of Fahrenkrog/ WO2013145984/ KR20210072184 discloses the claimed invention except for the collision risk determination.
WO2013145984 further discloses a controller that determines a collision risk distance between the vehicle and the neighboring object according to a braking distance of the vehicle, and then identifies a collision risk level by comparing the measured relative distance with the determined collision risk distance (At least where the WO2013145984 translation states: “Subsequently, a collision risk parameter is extracted (S150). In this process, parameters used for calculating the probability that the host vehicle and the low-speed moving object collide are extracted. Specifically, for example, a plurality of parameters are extracted such as the relative speed and the relative distance between the host vehicle and the low-speed moving object. Next, the light color to be irradiated is set according to the collision risk (S160). In this process, as shown in FIG. 3, the light color to be irradiated is determined using a map in which the light color to be irradiated is determined when the relative speed and the relative distance between the host vehicle and the low-speed moving object are input. In detail, the relationship between the relative distance and the relative speed corresponding to this braking distance is entered as a stop limit on the graph with reference to the braking distance considering the free running distance when the driver applies the brake. The braking distance is such that the relative speed between the host vehicle and the low-speed moving object is equal to the absolute speed of the host vehicle. Then, the boundary for setting the light color to be irradiated is determined by multiplying the stop limit by a predetermined safety factor (coefficient). For example, in the map shown in FIG. 3, the boundary between red and yellow is obtained by multiplying the value of the relative distance of the stop limit ((A) in the figure) by a safety factor α (1 <α, for example, about 1.08). Middle (B)) and multiply the value of the relative distance of the stop limit by the safety factor β (α <β, for example, about 1.2) to set the boundary between yellow and blue ((C) in the figure) ing. However, in the map shown in FIG. 3, when the relative speed is equal to or higher than the absolute red irradiation speed V_RED (for example, about 95 km / h) or when the relative distance is less than the absolute red irradiation distance d_RED (for example, about 35 m). In this case, the light color to be irradiated is set to red regardless of the values of other parameters. The safety factors α and β are obtained experimentally.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention to have modified the system of Fahrenkrog/ WO2013145984/ KR20210072184 to have determined a collision risk distance based on the claimed distance measures, as taught by WO2013145984, in order to allow for more accurate calculations to ensure that the proper irradiation is provided to a driver regarding the potential for impacts.
Further, even though Fahrenkrog does not expressly discuss the claimed distance measurements, a PHOSITA would readily recognize that a braking distance/risk distance calculation is more than likely occurring aboard the vehicle of Fahrenkrog since broad speed/distance calculations are performed by Fahrenkrog to determine a risk level for appropriate irradiation and safety measures. These variables are also well-known in the vehicle collision risk arts.
Regarding claim 3, the primary reference, Fahrenkrog, discloses that the collision risk level includes a safety level, a caution level, and a danger level, and wherein the controller controls the lamp according to the identified collision risk level (At least where Fahrenkrog discloses: “Depending on the value of the variable which is characteristic for the potential danger, a marking mode for the marking of the danger zone can be selected and the danger zone can then be marked with the selected marking method, so that the potential danger for the unprotected road user can be identified by the selected marking method. For example, various levels of hazard can be represented by the fluorescent color, for. Eg green: low risk, yellow: medium danger, red: acute danger.”).
Regarding claim 4, the primary reference, Fahrenkrog, discloses that the controller controls the lamp by changing a color of light irradiated by the lamp (At least where Fahrenkrog discloses: “This is, for example, a matrix of controllable lighting elements, for example a matrix headlight. But it would also headlights with controllable aperture conceivable. Furthermore, a control unit for controlling the lighting means is provided.” – and – “For example, various levels of hazard can be represented by the fluorescent color, for. E.g. green: low risk, yellow: medium danger, red: acute danger. The danger potential indicated by the marking mode can be continuously updated according to the movement of the vehicle and the road user.”).
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination of Fahrenkrog/ WO2013145984/ KR20210072184 discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed internal lighting system.
Nevertheless, KR20210072184 discloses an internal lighting configured to be installed in the vehicle, wherein the controller controls the internal lighting to change at least one of a color of light from the internal lighting or a number of times the internal lighting is turned on according to the identified collision risk level (At least where the KR20210072184 translation states: “In the present invention, when the driving situation is a collision risk detection situation and the autonomous driving intervention information is semi-autonomous driving or manual driving, the control unit sets a different driver warning step according to the location of the object in which the collision risk is detected to notify the driver Provide collision risk recognition information through the unit, but when the object is located more than a set distance from the vehicle, output a step 1 notification through the notification unit, and when the object is located less than a set distance from the vehicle, the notification unit The second stage notification may be output through the notification, the lighting color or blinking speed of the lamp display unit may be changed according to the first stage notification and the second stage notification, and the collision risk recognition information may be displayed on the display unit. In the present invention, when the driving situation is an automatic emergency braking situation and the autonomous driving intervention information is at least one of fully autonomous driving, semi-autonomous driving, and manual driving, the control unit may include at least one of the lamp display unit, the display unit, and the user terminal. An automatic emergency braking recognition notification may be output through one, but the lamp display unit may flash a gradation at a preset color and speed, or the automatic emergency braking recognition information may be displayed on the display unit or the user terminal. In the present invention, when the driving situation is a control right transfer situation and the autonomous driving intervention information is fully autonomous driving, the control unit outputs a control right transfer recognition notification through at least one of the lamp display unit, the display unit, and the user terminal, The lamp display unit illuminates the lighting color or flashing speed differently according to the driver warning step, displays the control right transfer recognition information on the display unit, or uses at least one of a pop-up, vibration, and sound on the user terminal to display the control right Transfer recognition information can be output. In the present invention, when the driving situation is a drowsy driving situation and the autonomous driving intervention information is semi-autonomous driving or manual driving, the controller outputs a notification of drowsy driving through the lamp display unit or the display unit, but the lamp display unit A lighting color or a blinking cycle may be lit differently according to driver state information, or information on recognition of drowsy driving may be displayed on the display unit.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention to have modified the system of Fahrenkrog/ WO2013145984/ KR20210072184 to have an internal lighting system, as taught by KR20210072184, in order to allow for improved safety through multiple notifications to the driver internal to the vehicle. The internal lights of KR20210072184 compliment the exterior lighting of Fahrenkrog to ensure that the driver is made aware through multiple means of impending impact risk.
Regarding claim 7, the primary reference, Fahrenkrog, discloses that each divided area irradiated by light ahead of and behind the vehicle has a width that is greater than a width of a divided area irradiated by light on a side of the vehicle (At least depicted in Fig. 1a-c).
Regarding claim 9, Fahrenkrog discloses a method of avoiding a collision between a vehicle and a neighboring object, the method comprising: radiating, by a plurality of lamps (At least where the Fahrenkrog translation states: “A second aspect of the invention relates to a warning device for a motor vehicle arranged for automated driving for warning an unprotected road user from a collision with the motor vehicle. Illuminants are provided for the visible to the unprotected road user marking a danger area on the ground in the vicinity of the motor vehicle with light to warn the unprotected road user from a collision with the automated motor vehicle. This is, for example, a matrix of controllable lighting elements, for example a matrix headlight. But it would also headlights with controllable aperture conceivable.”) installed in the vehicle, light to respective divided areas around the vehicle (At least where the Fahrenkrog translation states: “For this purpose, for example, the vehicle 2 surrounding environment area 4 around the vehicle 2 around in a plurality of from vehicle view in different directions facing sectors are subdivided around the motor vehicle, as exemplified in 1b is shown. The sectors can be designed in any size and number. The environment area 4 can the vehicle 2 completely enclose (as in 1a and 1b), The environment area 4 but does not completely enclose the vehicle” along with its other associated parts of the disclosure; Fig. 1a-c); measuring a speed of the vehicle; measuring a relative distance between the vehicle and the neighboring object (At least where the Fahrenkrog translation states: “For example, the size of the hazard potential of each distance to the vehicle can be considered. In addition, the vehicle speed can also be taken into account, so that in this way the arrangement of the marking modes is modulated as a function of the vehicle speed.”); and determining, by a controller, a collision risk area between the vehicle and the neighboring object (At least where Fahrenkrog discloses the control unit; Fig. 1a-c) from among the divided areas based on the measured speed and relative distance (At least where the Fahrenkrog translation states: “In each case, a value of a variable which is characteristic of the danger potential can be determined for different positions of the danger zone and, depending on the respective value, the marking mode can be selected at the respective position. For example, the size of the hazard potential of each distance to the vehicle can be considered. In addition, the vehicle speed can also be taken into account, so that in this way the arrangement of the marking modes is modulated as a function of the vehicle speed. For example, the value of the TTC is calculated for the positions and the individual values are classified in order to assign different marking methods to the individual positions, which are then marked in the assigned marking mode.”), and controlling, by the controller, among the plurality of lamps, a lamp radiating light to the collision risk area (At least where the Fahrenkrog translation states: “If the hazard criterion is not met, no danger area is marked on the ground. If, on the other hand, the hazard criterion is fulfilled, the locally closest sector of the surrounding area becomes 4 illuminated so that the danger area the VRU 1 is identified (see step 130 ). The illumination can be done in different colors or patterns. The illumination may be provided by a separate (controllable) illumination source (eg, matrix lighting elements for illuminating the direct vehicle environment) and / or by the standard vehicle lighting (eg, an LED matrix headlight).”).
However, Fahrenkrog does not expressly discuss the exact terms speed or distance measurement sensors or an output unit operatively connected to the controller, wherein the controller controls the output unit to change a number of times a notification is provided by the output unit according to a collision risk level.
Nevertheless, WO2013145984 discloses speed and distance measurement sensors (vehicle speed sensor, 25/ radar device, 22) used to provide information to a vehicle CPU to determine risk-related periphery lighting to illuminate objects.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention to have modified the system of Fahrenkrog to have speed/distance sensors, as taught by WO2013145984, in order to allow for more accurate measurements as inputs for the calculations performed in Fahrenkrog regarding speed and distance during risk assessment.
Further, even though Fahrenkrog does not expressly discuss sensors for speed/distance measurements, a PHOSITA would readily recognize that a speed/distance measurement sensing components are likely aboard the vehicle since they are ubiquitous in the vehicle arts, exist within a majority of vehicles, and are well-known, typical components in vehicles and universally used for providing speed information/feedback to a driver during vehicle operation. It is also likely that Fahrenkrog uses speed/distance sensors to carry out the speed/distance measurement aspects of the invention since this is a well-known, typical manner of acquiring speed/distance information, and Fahrenkrog performs speed/distance measurements to establish hazard criteria.
Also, KR20210072184 discloses an output unit operatively connected to the controller, wherein the controller controls the output unit to change a number of times a notification is provided by the output unit according to a collision risk level (At least the disclosed notification unit which leverages multiple types of collision warnings through the notification unit at least including lighting color, blinking, displaying collision risk information, faster flashing speed of the lighting; “As described above, since the risk of collision is a driving intervention during manual driving, when notifying the risk of collision through the lamp display unit 152, the control unit 140 selects a lighting type that can remind the driver and provides the meaning of the warning. You can choose a color that can be conveyed. The notification through the lamp display unit 152 (indoor lighting) may indicate urgency by dividing it into stages. For example, by illuminating in red in stage 1 and flashing at a faster speed than in stage 1 in stage 2, it can give a sense of urgency and remind the driver of the risk of a collision. When the collision risk is notified through the display unit 154, the control unit 140 may briefly guide the collision risk in bold type along with an icon picture that is easy to recognize on the cluster display and HUD that the driver can most easily recognize while driving have” and “In the present invention, when the driving situation is a collision risk detection situation and the autonomous driving intervention information is semi-autonomous driving or manual driving, the control unit sets a different driver warning step according to the location of the object in which the collision risk is detected to notify the driver Provide collision risk recognition information through the unit, but when the object is located more than a set distance from the vehicle, output a step 1 notification through the notification unit, and when the object is located less than a set distance from the vehicle, the notification unit The second stage notification may be output through the notification, the lighting color or blinking speed of the lamp display unit may be changed according to the first stage notification and the second stage notification, and the collision risk recognition information may be displayed on the display unit.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified Fahrenkrog to have an output unit with a controller to warn change the number of times a notification is provided according to a collision risk level, as taught by KR20210072184, in order to allow for improved safety through multiple notifications to the driver internal to the vehicle. The internal lights of KR20210072184 compliment the exterior lighting of Fahrenkrog to ensure that the driver is made aware through multiple means of impending impact risk.
Regarding claim 10, the previous combination of Fahrenkrog/ WO2013145984/ KR20210072184 discloses the claimed invention except for the collision risk determination.
WO2013145984 further discloses that the controlling of the lamp comprises, after determining, by the controller, a collision risk distance between the vehicle and the neighboring object according to a braking distance of the vehicle, identifying, by the controller, a collision risk level by comparing, by the controller, the measured relative distance with the determined collision risk distance, and changing, by the controller, a color of light irradiated by the lamp according to the identified collision risk level (At least where the WO2013145984 translation states: “Subsequently, a collision risk parameter is extracted (S150). In this process, parameters used for calculating the probability that the host vehicle and the low-speed moving object collide are extracted. Specifically, for example, a plurality of parameters are extracted such as the relative speed and the relative distance between the host vehicle and the low-speed moving object. Next, the light color to be irradiated is set according to the collision risk (S160). In this process, as shown in FIG. 3, the light color to be irradiated is determined using a map in which the light color to be irradiated is determined when the relative speed and the relative distance between the host vehicle and the low-speed moving object are input. In detail, the relationship between the relative distance and the relative speed corresponding to this braking distance is entered as a stop limit on the graph with reference to the braking distance considering the free running distance when the driver applies the brake. The braking distance is such that the relative speed between the host vehicle and the low-speed moving object is equal to the absolute speed of the host vehicle. Then, the boundary for setting the light color to be irradiated is determined by multiplying the stop limit by a predetermined safety factor (coefficient). For example, in the map shown in FIG. 3, the boundary between red and yellow is obtained by multiplying the value of the relative distance of the stop limit ((A) in the figure) by a safety factor α (1 <α, for example, about 1.08). Middle (B)) and multiply the value of the relative distance of the stop limit by the safety factor β (α <β, for example, about 1.2) to set the boundary between yellow and blue ((C) in the figure) ing. However, in the map shown in FIG. 3, when the relative speed is equal to or higher than the absolute red irradiation speed V_RED (for example, about 95 km / h) or when the relative distance is less than the absolute red irradiation distance d_RED (for example, about 35 m). In this case, the light color to be irradiated is set to red regardless of the values of other parameters. The safety factors α and β are obtained experimentally.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention to have modified the system of Fahrenkrog/ WO2013145984/ KR20210072184 to have determined a collision risk distance based on the claimed distance measures, as taught by WO2013145984, in order to allow for more accurate calculations to ensure that the proper irradiation is provided to a driver regarding the potential for impacts.
Further, even though Fahrenkrog does not expressly discuss the claimed distance measurements, a PHOSITA would readily recognize that a braking distance/risk distance calculation is more than likely occurring aboard the vehicle of Fahrenkrog since broad speed/distance calculations are performed by Fahrenkrog to determine a risk level for appropriate irradiation and safety measures. These variables are also well-known in the vehicle collision risk arts.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017222280 to Fahrenkrog in view of WO2013145984 and KR20210072184, and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2008/0319602 to McClellan et al.
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination of Fahrenkrog/ WO2013145984/ KR20210072184 discloses the claimed invention except that the output unit includes an audio output unit configured to be installed in the vehicle and to provide the notification, wherein the controller controls the audio output unit to change the number of times the notification is provided according to the identified collision risk level.
Nevertheless, McClellan discloses the output unit includes an audio output unit configured to be installed in the vehicle and to provide the notification, wherein the controller controls the audio output unit to change the number of times the notification is provided according to the identified collision risk level (At least where McClellan discloses, “The present invention to combines triggering events with visual and/or audible warning to change driver behavior. The mentoring messages may be configured by event or violation. For a selected parameter, such as vehicle speed, a user may configure one or more thresholds that, when exceeded, trigger a mentoring message. The type and content of the mentoring messages are also configurable. For example, audible and/or visual warnings may be assigned to each threshold criteria so that, upon reaching the threshold speed, for example, a selected warning is played or displayed. The warnings may be further configured to change over time. For example, audible warnings, such as tones or buzzers, may increase in volume or frequency or may change to different sound if the triggering violation is not corrected. A spoken message warning, such as “speeding violation” or “slow down,” may be repeated more frequently and/or louder if the speeding violation is not corrected. Alternatively, the spoken message may change to a different message and/or a different voice if the triggering event is not stopped. Visual messages, such as warning lights, may change from flashing to steady (or visa versa) if the violation continues. Text warning messages may also be displayed to the user and may change over time.” – Par. [0022, 0028, 0030, 0036-0038, 0040]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention to have modified the system of Fahrenkrog/ WO2013145984/ KR20210072184 to have an audio output system, as taught by CN102163060, in order to allow for greater alerting capabilities through the synergy of exterior lighting and interior sound alerts for greater driver awareness of collision risks. Further, it is noted that KR20210072184 leverages sound as an output warning to the driver during a control transfer process and when a driver appears to be drowsy.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017222280 to Fahrenkrog in view of WO2013145984 and KR20210072184, and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2019/025825 to Ditty et al.
Regarding claim 8, the previous combination of Fahrenkrog and WO2013145984 discloses the claimed invention except for the specific short/medium range radars.
Nevertheless, Ditty discloses that the distance measurement sensor includes medium range radars (MMRs) configured to be installed at a front and a rear of the vehicle, and a short range radar (SRR) configured to be installed on a side of the vehicle (At least at Par. [0155-0156]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention to have modified the system of Fahrenkrog/ WO2013145984/ KR20210072184 to have short/medium range distance sensors, as taught by Ditty, in order to allow for accurate object tracking and collision warnings to improve the safety of the driver and external objects.
Further, it is noted that the types of detection described in Fahrenkrog/ WO2013145984/ KR20210072184 likely use short-range and medium-range sensors since these types of sensors are ubiquitous in the vehicle navigation arts in the claimed configuration for the express purposes disclosed in Ditty and these types of sensors are commonly relied upon to provide distance information in the vehicle control area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because of Applicant’s amendments to the claims to include “an output unit” which broadens the scope of the invention.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 9 to add the limitations:
“an output unit operatively coupled to the controller wherein the controller controls the output unit to change a number of times a notification is provided by the output unit according to a collision risk level” and
“wherein the controller controls an output unit operatively coupled to the controller to change a number of times a notification is provided by the output unit according to a collision risk level,” respectively.
Claim 5 has also been amended to include the limitation:
“the output unit includes an audio output unit.”
Applicant has amended the claims to include an “output unit” which “includes an audio output unit.” There is no disclosure in the application defining the newly claimed, broader “output unit.” The specification also ambiguously recites various lighting that provide light as an outputted waring signal; however, none of the lighting is ascribed to a particular or enumerated output unit. It is unclear as to which unit, structure, or combination of units/structures Applicant may be intending to claim by introducing the “output unit.”
New grounds of rejection are proffered in this Office action due to the claim amendments broadening the scope of the independent claims. The amended language has been treated above under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) for lack of written description and clarity. The amended claims are addressed as best understood.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. 6,502,035 to Levine was uncovered during an updated search and discloses a safety system for vehicles which leverages a multitude of internal (visual display, audible announcement, etc.) and external warnings (flashing lights, horn soundings, sirens, etc.) to the own driver/other drivers.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights