DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 24, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 14, and 18 are amended.
Claims 1-21 are pending this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 14, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. The term “borders” is indefinite and does not have a threshold nor boundary.
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, 3-9, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield et al (US 2005/0179527 A1) in view of Chundrlik et al (US 2018/0075752 A1) and Schwindt et al (US 2013/0063257 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schofield teaches a vehicular sensing system, the vehicular sensing system comprising [0018 for blind stop detection using CMOS video camera (sensor)]:
a camera disposed at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular sensing system, the camera viewing exterior of the equipped vehicle [0018 for a lane change aid with a image based detector element 14];
wherein the camera is operable to capture image data [0018];
a radar sensor disposed at the equipped vehicle, the radar sensor sensing at least rearward and sideward of the equipped vehicle [0019 for getting vehicles rear axle and 0023 getting data on both rear and side of vehicle];
wherein the radar sensor is operable to capture radar data [0018 for using a radar or a Doppler sensor];
an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software [0022 for using a CAN bus and central processor];
wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred to the ECU, and wherein radar data captured by the radar sensor is transferred to the ECU [0022];
wherein the electronic circuitry of the ECU comprises at least one data processor [0022-0023];
wherein the ECU is operable to process (i) image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU and (ii) radar data captured by the radar sensor and transferred to the ECU [0018];
wherein the vehicular sensing system, via processing at the ECU of radar data captured by the radar sensor, detects an object within a blind spot of a driver of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the blind spot is at least sideward of the equipped vehicle [0023 and 0026 for determining road edges and lane edge positions with means to recognize lane markers and other features such as curbs];
wherein the vehicular sensing system, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the camera, determines that the equipped vehicle is within a traffic lane that borders an edge of a road along which the equipped vehicle is traveling [0020 for indicating blind spot in adjacent lane to the driver].
Schofield fails to explicitly teach wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array, and wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns.
Chundrlik has a method for determining potential collision with another vehicle by a vehicle equipped with a vision system (abstract) and teaches wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array, and wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns [0029 for using a radar photo sensor array with 1 million elements or pixels with 0032].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blind spot techniques, as disclosed by Schofield, further including the array element calculations as taught by Chundrlik for the purpose to capture color image data via spectral filtering at the array (Chundrlik, 0029).
Schofield fails to explicitly teach and wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the detected object is sideward from the side of the equipped vehicle that is closest to the edge of the road along which the equipped vehicle is traveling, suppresses the blind spot warning, wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the detected object is to the side of the equipped vehicle that borders the edge of the road, generates a blind spot warning.
Schwindt has a system for detecting objects in the blind spot of a host vehicle (abstract) and teaches wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the detected object is sideward from the side of the equipped vehicle that is closest to the edge of the road along which the equipped vehicle is traveling, suppresses the blind spot warning [0026 for presence of the third vehicle behind the stagnating vehicle based on the data from the right blind spot sensor, and 0027 for not triggering a blind spot warning for a stationary object such as a guard rail],
wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the detected object is to the side of the equipped vehicle that borders the edge of the road, generates a blind spot warning [0017 for left of the host vehicle is a guard rail that runs along the length of the roadway].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blind spot techniques, as disclosed by Schofield, further including the blind spot suppression calculations as taught by Schwindt for the purpose to determine if the object is stationary or moving (Schwindt, 0027).
Regarding Claim 14, Schofield teaches a vehicular sensing system, the vehicular sensing system comprising [0018 for blind stop detection using CMOS video camera (sensor)]:
a camera disposed at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular sensing system, the camera viewing exterior of the equipped vehicle [0018 for a lane change aid with a image based detector element 14],
wherein the camera is disposed at a windshield of the equipped vehicle and views forward of the equipped vehicle through the windshield of the equipped vehicle [0027 for using a forward-facing camera];
wherein the camera is operable to capture image data [0018];
a radar sensor disposed at the equipped vehicle, the radar sensor sensing at least rearward and sideward of the equipped vehicle [0019 for getting vehicles rear axle and Claim 45 for getting data on both rear and side of vehicle];
wherein the radar sensor is operable to capture radar data [0018 for radar and doppler sensors];
an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software [0022 for using a CAN bus and central processor];
wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred to the ECU, and wherein radar data captured by the radar sensor is transferred to the ECU [0022];
wherein the electronic circuitry of the ECU comprises at least one data processor [0022-0023];
wherein the ECU is operable to process (i) image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU and (ii) radar data captured by the radar sensor and transferred to the ECU [0018, 0022-0023];
wherein the vehicular sensing system, via processing at the ECU of radar data captured by the radar sensor, detects an object within a blind spot of a driver of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the blind spot is at least sideward of the equipped vehicle [0023 and 0026 for determining road edges and lane edge positions with means to recognize lane markers and other features such as curbs];
wherein the vehicular sensing system, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the camera, determines that the equipped vehicle is within a traffic lane that borders an edge of a road along which the equipped vehicle is traveling based on determining a distance between the equipped vehicle and the edge of the road [0020 for indicating blind spot in adjacent lane to the driver].
Schofield fails to explicitly teach wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array, and wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns.
Chundrlik has a method for determining potential collision with another vehicle by a vehicle equipped with a vision system (abstract) and teaches wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array, and wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns [0029 for using a radar photo sensor array with 1 million elements or pixels with 0032].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blind spot techniques, as disclosed by Schofield, further including the array element calculations as taught by Chundrlik for the purpose to capture color image data via spectral filtering at the array (Chundrlik, 0029).
Schofield fails to explicitly teach and wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the detected object is sideward from the side of the equipped vehicle that is closest to the edge of the road along which the equipped vehicle is traveling, suppresses the blind spot warning, wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the detected object is to the side of the equipped vehicle that borders the edge of the road, generates a blind spot warning.
Schwindt has a system for detecting objects in the blind spot of a host vehicle (abstract) and teaches wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the detected object is sideward from the side of the equipped vehicle that is closest to the edge of the road along which the equipped vehicle is traveling, suppresses the blind spot warning [0026 for presence of the third vehicle behind the stagnating vehicle based on the data from the right blind spot sensor, and 0027 for not triggering a blind spot warning for a stationary object such as a guard rail],
wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the detected object is to the side of the equipped vehicle that borders the edge of the road, generates a blind spot warning [0017 for left of the host vehicle is a guard rail that runs along the length of the roadway].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blind spot techniques, as disclosed by Schofield, further including the blind spot suppression calculations as taught by Schwindt for the purpose to determine if the object is stationary or moving (Schwindt, 0027).
Regarding Claim 18, Schofield teaches vehicular sensing system, the vehicular sensing system comprising [0018 for blind stop detection using CMOS video camera (sensor)]:
a camera disposed at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular sensing system, the camera viewing at least forward of the equipped vehicle [0018 for a lane change aid with a image based detector element 14];
wherein the camera is operable to capture image data [0018];
a radar sensor disposed at the equipped vehicle, the radar sensor sensing at least rearward and sideward of the equipped vehicle, wherein the radar sensor comprises a corner radar sensor disposed at a rear corner of the equipped vehicle [0019 for getting vehicles rear axle and Claim 45 for getting data on both rear and side of vehicle];
wherein the radar sensor is operable to capture radar data [0018 for radar and doppler];
an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software [0022 for using a CAN bus and central processor];
wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred to the ECU, and wherein radar data captured by the radar sensor is transferred to the ECU [0022];
wherein the electronic circuitry of the ECU comprises at least one data processor [0022-0023];
wherein the ECU is operable to process (i) image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU and (ii) radar data captured by the radar sensor and transferred to the ECU [0018 with 0022-0023];
wherein the vehicular sensing system, via processing at the ECU of radar data captured by the radar sensor, detects an object within a blind spot of a driver of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the blind spot is at least sideward of the equipped vehicle [0023 and 0026 for determining road edges and lane edge positions with means to recognize lane markers and other features such as curbs];
wherein the vehicular sensing system determines a distance between at least one point of interest on the equipped vehicle and an edge of a road along which the equipped vehicle is traveling [0020 for indicating blind spot in adjacent lane to the driver];
wherein the vehicular sensing system, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the camera, and responsive to determining the distance between the at least one point of interest on the equipped vehicle and the edge of the road, determines that the equipped vehicle is within a traffic lane that borders the edge of the road [0026-0027 for using algorithms to determining rubber slicks, road signs and lane markers and giving warnings].
Schofield fails to explicitly teach wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array, and wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns.
Chundrlik has a method for determining potential collision with another vehicle by a vehicle equipped with a vision system (abstract) and teaches wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array, and wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns [0029 for using a radar photo sensor array with 1 million elements or pixels with 0032].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blind spot techniques, as disclosed by Schofield, further including the array element calculations as taught by Chundrlik for the purpose to capture color image data via spectral filtering at the array (Chundrlik, 0029).
Schofield fails to explicitly teach and wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the detected object is sideward from the side of the equipped vehicle that is closest to the edge of the road along which the equipped vehicle is traveling, suppresses the blind spot warning.
Schwindt has a system for detecting objects in the blind spot of a host vehicle (abstract) and teaches wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the detected object is sideward from the side of the equipped vehicle that is closest to the edge of the road along which the equipped vehicle is traveling, suppresses the blind spot warning [0026 for presence of the third vehicle behind the stagnating vehicle based on the data from the right blind spot sensor, and 0027 for not triggering a blind spot warning for a stationary object such as a guard rail],
wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the detected object is to the side of the equipped vehicle that borders the edge of the road, generates a blind spot warning [0017 for left of the host vehicle is a guard rail that runs along the length of the roadway].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blind spot techniques, as disclosed by Schofield, further including the blind spot suppression calculations as taught by Schwindt for the purpose to determine if the object is stationary or moving (Schwindt, 0027).
Regarding Claim 3, Schofield teaches the camera is disposed at an exterior rearview mirror assembly disposed at the side of the equipped vehicle [0023-0024 for using mirrors].
Regarding Claim 4 and 15, Schofield teaches the radar sensor comprises a corner radar sensor disposed at a rear corner of the equipped vehicle [0021-0022].
Regarding Claim 5, Schofield teaches the vehicular sensing system determines that the equipped vehicle is within the traffic lane that borders the edge of the road along which the equipped vehicle is traveling based on determining a distance between the equipped vehicle and the edge of the road [0026 for road edges].
Regarding Claim 6 and 16, Schofield teaches the vehicular sensing system determines the distance between the equipped vehicle and the edge of the road based on traffic lane information determined via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the camera [0026 for classifying lane markers].
Regarding Claim 7, Schofield teaches the traffic lane information comprises a cubic polynomial [0024].
Regarding Claim 8 and 17, Schofield teaches the vehicular sensing system determines a distance between at least one point of interest on the equipped vehicle and the edge of the road [0020 for using distance for lane change].
Regarding Claim 9 and 19, Schofield teaches the at least one point of interest comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a first point of interest on the equipped vehicle aligned with a front bumper of the equipped vehicle, (ii) a second point of interest on the equipped vehicle aligned with a front axle of the equipped vehicle, and (iii) a third point of interest on the equipped vehicle aligned with a rear axle of the equipped vehicle [0027-0029 for using the front fender].
Regarding Claim 13, Schofield teaches the vehicular sensing system determines that the distance between the equipped vehicle and the edge of the road is less than a width of the traffic lane of the road [0026 for distinctly recognizing road edges and encroachment zones].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield et al (US 2005/0179527 A1) in view of Chundrlik et al (US 2018/0075752 A1) and Schwindt et al (US 2013/0063257 A1) and in further view of Potnis (US 2022/0108117 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Schofield fails to explicitly teach the camera is disposed at a windshield of the equipped vehicle and views forward of the equipped vehicle through the windshield of the equipped vehicle.
Potnis has a vehicular driving assistance system includes a camera and a LIDAR sensor (abstract) and teaches the camera is disposed at a windshield of the equipped vehicle and views forward of the equipped vehicle through the windshield of the equipped vehicle [0011 for having a camera behind the windshield].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blind spot techniques, as disclosed by Schofield, further including the sensor calculations as taught by Potnis for the purpose to determine presence of objects (Potnis, 0011).
Claims 10-12 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield et al (US 2005/0179527 A1) in view of Chundrlik et al (US 2018/0075752 A1) and Schwindt et al (US 2013/0063257 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 18 above, and in further view of Pandita et al (US 2017/0057502 A1).
Regarding Claim 10 and 20, Schofield fails to explicitly teach the vehicular sensing system selects one or more of the at least one point of interest based on a minimum valid range of traffic lane information determined from image data captured by the camera.
Pandita has a method for determined travel lane parameters are reliable based on the determined detection range (abstract) and teaches the vehicular sensing system selects one or more of the at least one point of interest based on a minimum valid range of traffic lane information determined from image data captured by the camera [0047-0048 for detection range based on distance (range) of a feature (travel lane)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blind spot techniques, as disclosed by Schofield, further including the range calculations as taught by Pandita for the purpose to capture the detection range can be a maximum distance or a maximum amount of time associated with acquired data (Pandita, 0047).
Regarding Claim 11 and 21, Schofield fails to explicitly teach the vehicular sensing system determines the minimum valid range of the traffic lane information based on one or more confidence values of the traffic lane information.
Pandita has a method for determined travel lane parameters are reliable based on the determined detection range (abstract) and teaches the vehicular sensing system determines the minimum valid range of the traffic lane information based on one or more confidence values of the traffic lane information [0072 for confidence level of the lane parameters].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blind spot techniques, as disclosed by Schofield, further including the confidence calculations as taught by Pandita for the purpose to determine when a greater amount of driver input is required (Pandita, 0072).
Regarding Claim 12, Schofield fails to explicitly teach the vehicular sensing system determines that the third point of interest on the equipped vehicle is not within the minimum valid range of the traffic lane information, and wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the third point of interest on the equipped vehicle is not within the minimum valid range of the traffic lane information, selects the one or more of the at least one point of interest based further on a point where the minimum valid range of the traffic lane information intersects the equipped vehicle.
Pandita has a method for determined travel lane parameters are reliable based on the determined detection range (abstract) and teaches the vehicular sensing system determines that the third point of interest on the equipped vehicle is not within the minimum valid range of the traffic lane information [0061 for determining thresholds for lane parameters and which parameters can be ignored],
and wherein the vehicular sensing system, responsive to determining that the third point of interest on the equipped vehicle is not within the minimum valid range of the traffic lane information, selects the one or more of the at least one point of interest based further on a point where the minimum valid range of the traffic lane information intersects the equipped vehicle [0061 for a threshold detection range for reliable parameters, 0086 for having a subset of points that area reliable (valid)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the blind spot techniques, as disclosed by Schofield, further including the range calculations as taught by Pandita for the purpose to determine which parameters are reliable for the vehicle path (Pandita, 0047).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In applicant’s arguments page 2, third paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Schofield does not disclose a blind spot warning. The examiner thanks the applicant for the amendments, Schofield teaches a blind-spot vehicle-presence indication can be displayed adjacent the exterior mirror assembly (notifying the vehicle operator) [Schofield, 0024].
In applicant’s arguments page 2, third paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Schofield does not disclose a blind spot warning suppression. The examiner respectfully disagrees, Schofield teaches Conversely, dashed lines may have no significance to lane departure warning algorithms since they merely indicate lane edge positions (implies suppressing lane warning based on markings) [Schofield, 0026].
In applicant’s arguments page 3, first paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Schwindt does not disclose a blind spot warning suppression. The examiner respectfully disagrees, Schwindt teaches part of the object detected by the blind spot sensor is also stationary, consequently, no blind-spot warning is triggered (means to suppress the warning) [Schwindt, 0027].
In applicant’s arguments page 3, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Schwindt does not disclose a blind spot warning suppression by assessing vehicle borders. The examiner respectfully disagrees, Schwindt teaches enabling the vehicle system to distinguish between definable stationary objects, utility poles, continuous stationary object e.g., guard rails, stagnating vehicles, and vehicles operating speeds (means to suppress the warning based on object edges for guard rails and vehicles) [Schwindt, 0028].
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s. However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
.
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 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 SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights