DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-3, and 6-20 remain pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after a Final Rejection. Since this application is eligible for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 05/19/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims 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 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.
Claims 1, 6-9, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0039636A1 (hereinafter, Kamiya), in view of Oboril et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2020/0262423A1 (hereinafter, Oboril).
Regarding Claim 1, Kamiya describes a method of reducing risks at a real-world location (collision avoidance control for avoiding a collision between a vehicle and another object, Kamiya, Paragraphs 0021, 0029), the method comprising:
receiving data from an image of the real-world location captured by a camera (receiving images captured by camera 14, Kamiya, Paragraph 0023);
-determining, from the data, a presence of a plurality of objects in the image (the image analyzer determines whether there is an object in each image, Kamiya, Paragraphs 0023, 0028 and Figure 2);
-determining, for each of the plurality of objects in the image, a plurality of parameters associated with each of the plurality of objects in the image (recognizing a location and a speed of a moving object and estimating a future movement trajectory of a moving object using the location and the speed of the moving object, Kamiya, Paragraphs 0022, 0025);
-determining a risk value for each of the plurality of objects in the image based upon the plurality of parameters associated with each of the plurality of objects in the image (the risk-index calculator calculates a risk index for determining whether the vehicle is likely to collide with a moving object using information about the moving object, analysis of images captured by the camera, and recognized surroundings, Kamiya, Paragraph 0026);
-determining whether the risk value of any of the plurality of objects in the image is above a predetermined value (the braking controller determines whether the risk index is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, Kamiya, Paragraph 0037); and
wherein the plurality of parameters for any of the plurality of objects comprises one or more of a speed of the object, a change of speed of the object, the number of accidents at the real-world location of the object, a number of people crossing a road at the real-world location of the object, a number of children at the real-world location, and a trajectory of the object (recognizing a speed of a moving object and estimating a future movement trajectory of a moving object using the location and the speed of the moving object, Kamiya, Paragraphs 0022, 0025).
Kamiya does not specifically describe the method to include based on the risk value of any of the plurality of objects in the image being determined to be above a predetermined value, selecting from a set of mitigation actions, a mitigation action that reduces the risk value of a first object of the one or more of the plurality of objects to below the predetermined value.
Oboril discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Oboril describes selecting a vehicle behavior from a data set of possible vehicle behaviors, determining risk values associated with the different vehicle behaviors, comparing the risk values to an allowed risk threshold, and selecting a vehicle behavior having a risk value below the threshold. The vehicle behaviors include evasive maneuvers, including changing lanes, accelerating, decelerating, turning, and exiting (Oboril, Paragraphs 0076-0080, 0085-0090, 0094-0096).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kamiya to include based on the risk value of any of the plurality of objects in the image being determined to be above a predetermined value, selecting from a set of mitigation actions, a mitigation action that reduces the risk value of a first object of the one or more of the plurality of objects to below the predetermined value, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Oboril.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because evaluating different possible vehicle behaviors based on their respective risk values and selecting a vehicle behavior having a risk value below an allowable risk threshold allows a collision avoidance behavior having an acceptable level of risk to be selected and implemented (Oboril, Paragraphs 0076-0079, 0088-0090).
Regarding Claim 6, Kamiya, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the mitigation action comprises a permanent mitigation action (selecting a mitigating action (e.g., initiate braking), Kamiya, Paragraphs 000036-0039, 0042, 0046, and 0058).
Regarding Claim 7, Kamiya, as modified, describes the method according to claim 6, wherein the permanent mitigation action is selected from a set consisting of an installation of a crossing, an installation of traffic lights, and/or an installation of a refuge island (selecting a mitigating action (e.g., initiate braking) which can be due to traffic lights, Kamiya, Paragraphs 000036-0039, 0042, 0046, and 0058).
Regarding Claim 8, Kamiya, as modified, describes the method according to claim 1 wherein the data comprises image data or metadata (receiving data from image data, Kamiya, Paragraph 0023).
Regarding Claim 9, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 1 and 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0039636A1 (hereinafter, Kamiya), in view of Oboril et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2020/0262423A1 (hereinafter, Oboril), in further view of Evanitsky et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0307087A1 (hereinafter, Evanitsky).
Regarding Claim 2, Kamiya describes the method according to claim 1.
Kamiya does not specifically disclose the method to include providing a warning signal to a second device in the event that the risk value is above a threshold value.
Evanitsky discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Evanitsky describes a device which is capable of alerting other devices or drivers (Evanitsky, Paragraph 0020 and Figure 1).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kamiya to include providing a warning signal to a second device in the event that the risk value is above a threshold value, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Evanitsky.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because alerting other devices or drivers allows the potential to avoid traffic accidents (Evanitsky, Paragraphs 0020-0021).
Regarding Claim 3, Kamiya describes the method according to claim 2.
Kamiya does not specifically disclose the method to include that the warning signal comprises an audible and/or visual alert.
Evanitsky discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Evanitsky describes a device which is capable of alerting other devices or drivers via an audible alert (Evanitsky, Paragraphs 0020 and 0025 and Figure 1).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kamiya to include that the warning signal comprises an audible and/or visual alert, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Evanitsky.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because alerting other devices or drivers allows the potential to avoid traffic accidents (Evanitsky, Paragraphs 0020-0021).
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights