DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-12 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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 06/24/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyaizu et al. WO2017/056454A1 (hereinafter, Oyaizu), in view of Ricci U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0306826A1 (hereinafter, Ricci).
Regarding Claim 1, Oyaizu describes a monitoring-control apparatus comprising:
-at least one memory storing instructions, and
-at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (controller for operating instructions, Oyaizu, Paragraph 0031) to:
-acquire monitoring information including at least one item out of vehicle information, intra-vehicular information, and extra-vehicular information of a vehicle being a monitoring target (variety of sensors to acquire information about the current vehicle and other vehicles around the vehicle (i.e., intra-vehicular and external vehicular), Oyaizu, Paragraphs 0023-0027 and 0029);
-formulate a plurality of avoidance actions for the vehicle to avoid a collision, based on the monitoring information (formulate / determine a plurality of avoidance actions for the vehicle to avoid a potential collision based on the input information, Oyaizu, Paragraph 0041);
-calculate a degree of damage to an … of the vehicle for each of the plurality of avoidance actions, based on the monitoring information (determining the degree of damage to a vehicle for each of the plurality of avoidance actions, Oyaizu, Paragraph 0010); and
-select an avoidance action from among the plurality of avoidance actions, based on the degree of damage (select an avoidance action from a plurality of actions, based on the degree of damage, Oyaizu, Paragraph 0013), and
-instruct the vehicle on a selected avoidance action (instruct / output the selection to the vehicle system, Oyaizu, Paragraphs 0015 and 0062).
Oyaizu does not specifically disclose the apparatus to include calculat[ing] a degree of damage to an inside of the vehicle.
Ricci discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ricci describes the ability for a vehicle system to determine a degree of damage of the vehicle both inside and outside based on monitoring systems (i.e., sensors) (Ricci, Paragraph 0415). Moreover, Ricci describes the use of predicative analysis to determine the degree of damage to a vehicle (Ricci, Paragraph 0510).
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 apparatus of Oyaizu to include calculating a degree of damage to an inside of the vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ricci.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining damage or predictive damage allows for actions of the vehicle to take place that can help maintain the vehicle (Ricci, Paragraph 0501).
Regarding Claim 2, Oyaizu, as modified, describes the monitoring-control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to select an avoidance action with a minimum degree of damage from among the plurality of avoidance actions and instruct the vehicle on a selected avoidance action (select and instruct the vehicle to perform the avoidance action with the minimum degree of potential damage, Oyaizu, Paragraph 0062).
Regarding Claim 3, Oyaizu, as modified, describes the monitoring-control apparatus according to claim 1.
Oyaizu does not specifically disclose the apparatus to include a degree of damage to an inside of the vehicle includes at least one of a degree of damage to a person inside the vehicle and a degree of damage to an object inside the vehicle.
Ricci discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ricci describes the ability for a vehicle system to determine a degree of damage of the vehicle both inside and outside based on monitoring systems (i.e., sensors) (Ricci, Paragraph 0415).
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 apparatus of Oyaizu to include a degree of damage to an inside of the vehicle includes at least one of a degree of damage to a person inside the vehicle and a degree of damage to an object inside the vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ricci.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining damage or predictive damage allows for actions of the vehicle to take place that can help maintain the vehicle (Ricci, Paragraph 0501).
Regarding Claim 4, Oyaizu, as modified, describes the monitoring-control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
-determine whether the vehicle can avoid a collision by an avoidance action for each of the plurality of avoidance actions; and, when the vehicle is determined to be not able to avoid a collision by the avoidance action, reflect a degree of damage based on the collision in a degree of damage to an inside of the vehicle (select an avoidance action, which can include determining if a collision could be avoided all together, from a plurality of actions, based on the degree of damage determined (i.e., reflected), Oyaizu, Paragraphs 0013-0015 and 0062).
Regarding Claim 5, Oyaizu, as modified, describes the monitoring-control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
-define vehicle control in an avoidance action for each of the plurality of avoidance actions (define vehicle control avoidance actions (see ID), Oyaizu, Paragraph 0062); and
-set an allowable range of the vehicle control, based on the monitoring information (setting an allowable range of vehicle control (i.e., allowing some and not other evasive actions based on sensor information), Oyaizu, Paragraphs 0062-0066), and
-select an avoidance action satisfying the allowable range from among the plurality of avoidance actions (selecting an allowable vehicle action (i.e., allowing some and not other evasive actions based on sensor information), Oyaizu, Paragraphs 0062-0066).
Regarding Claim 6, Oyaizu, as modified, describes the monitoring-control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein vehicles being the monitoring targets include a first vehicle and a second vehicle (monitoring targets such as a first and second vehicle, Oyaizu, Paragraphs 0023-0027), and the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
-acquire the monitoring information of the first vehicle and the monitoring information of the second vehicle (acquire monitoring information of a first and second vehicle, Oyaizu, Paragraphs 0023-0027);
-formulate a plurality of avoidance actions for the first vehicle to avoid a collision with the second vehicle, based on monitoring information of the first vehicle (formulate a plurality of actions to avoid a collision for the vehicles detected, Oyaizu, Paragraphs 0062-0066), and
-formulate a plurality of avoidance actions for the second vehicle to avoid a collision with the first vehicle, based on monitoring information of the second vehicle (formulate a plurality of actions to avoid a collision for the vehicles detected, Oyaizu, Paragraphs 0062-0066);
-calculate a degree of damage to an … of the first vehicle for each of a plurality of avoidance actions of the first vehicle and calculates a degree of damage to an … of the second vehicle for each of a plurality of avoidance actions of the second vehicle (determining the degree of damage to a vehicle or vehicles for each of the plurality of avoidance actions, Oyaizu, Paragraph 0010); and
-select a combination of avoidance actions from among combinations of an avoidance action of the first vehicle and an avoidance action of the second vehicle, based on a degree of damage to an … of the first vehicle and a degree of damage to an inside of the second vehicle (select and instruct the vehicle to perform an avoidance action or actions based on determined potential damage, Oyaizu, Paragraph 0062), and
-instruct each of the first vehicle and the second vehicle on an avoidance action related to the selected combination of avoidance actions (select and instruct the vehicle to perform an avoidance action or actions based on determined degree of potential damage, Oyaizu, Paragraph 0062).
Oyaizu does not specifically disclose the apparatus to include calculat[ing] a degree of damage to an inside of a vehicle (i.e., first or second vehicle).
Ricci discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ricci describes the ability for a vehicle system to determine a degree of damage of the vehicle both inside and outside based on monitoring systems (i.e., sensors) (Ricci, Paragraph 0415). Moreover, Ricci describes the use of predicative analysis to determine the degree of damage to a vehicle (Ricci, Paragraph 0510).
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 apparatus of Oyaizu to include calculating a degree of damage to an inside of a vehicle (i.e., a first or second vehicle), as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ricci.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining damage or predictive damage allows for actions of the vehicle to take place that can help maintain the vehicle (Ricci, Paragraph 0501).
Regarding Claim 7, Oyaizu, as modified, describes the monitoring-control apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to select a combination of avoidance actions minimizing a total of a degree of damage to an … of the first vehicle and a degree of damage to an … of the second vehicle from among combinations of an avoidance action of the first vehicle and an avoidance action of the second vehicle and instruct each of the first vehicle and the second vehicle on an avoidance action related to the selected combination of avoidance actions (select and instruct the vehicle to perform an avoidance action or actions based on determined degree of potential damage, Oyaizu, Paragraph 0062).
Oyaizu does not specifically disclose the apparatus to include a degree of damage to an inside of a vehicle (i.e., first or second vehicle).
Ricci discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ricci describes the ability for a vehicle system to determine a degree of damage of the vehicle both inside and outside based on monitoring systems (i.e., sensors) (Ricci, Paragraph 0415). Moreover, Ricci describes the use of predicative analysis to determine the degree of damage to a vehicle (Ricci, Paragraph 0510).
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 apparatus of Oyaizu to include determining a degree of damage to an inside of a vehicle (i.e., a first or second vehicle), as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ricci.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining damage or predictive damage allows for actions of the vehicle to take place that can help maintain the vehicle (Ricci, Paragraph 0501).
Regarding Claim 8, 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 9, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 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 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.
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