DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 12/26/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-7 have been amended and claims 8-10 have been added. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but are considered moot because they are directed toward limitations that have not been previously considered and have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection to the drawings, Applicant has submitted replacement sheet to overcome the objection. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the objections. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §112, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §112 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0021615 A1; hereinafter Inaba) in view of Kubota et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0055525 A1; hereinafter Kubota) and Chada et al. (“Evaluation of the Driving Performance and User Acceptance of a Predictive Eco-Driving Assistance System for Electric Vehicles”; see reference U on PTO-892; hereinafter Chada).
Regarding claim 1, Inaba discloses:
A driving assistance apparatus configured to assist driving of a vehicle (vehicle 1 equipped with vehicle control device 10, see at least [0025]), the driving assistance apparatus comprising: one or more processors (vehicle control device 10 is a computer including a CPU, see at least [0027]); and
one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors (ROM stores programs for implementing various functions and CPU executes programs loaded from ROM onto RAM, see at least [0027]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
set a position and a movement speed of a virtual object that is possibly to come out from a blind spot region present in a traveling direction of the vehicle (blind spot object estimating unit 11 detects blind spot area and determine risk of blind spot object 52 bolting out, see at least [0050] and [0064]; estimated speed of blind object 52 bolting out, see at least [0066] and Fig. 5; coordinates representing risk of blind spot object, see at least [0068]);
execute a particular point identification process of identifying, as a particular point, a point at which the traveling direction of the vehicle and a moving direction of the virtual object intersect (estimated collision position, see at least [0066] and Fig. 9);
execute an upper-limit speed setting process of setting, as an upper-limit speed, a speed that a speed of the vehicle reaches by deceleration and that is of an upper limit to allow for avoidance of contact between the vehicle and the virtual object at the particular point (based on desirable maximum deceleration rate, determining a target blind-spot passing speed before user vehicle passes through estimated collision position, see at least [0071]);
execute a speed change plan setting process of setting one or more speed change plans based on a current position of the vehicle (a plurality of speed profile candidates are calculated for the current speed to be reduced before the user vehicle passes through the estimated collision position, see at least [0071]), a distance from the current position of the vehicle to the particular point (distance to estimated collision position, see at least [0065]), a current speed of the vehicle (driving action candidate is calculated based on route information and a current vehicle speed so the user vehicle does not collide with moving body, see at least [0046], [0057], and [0071]), and the upper-limit speed (standard speed vehicle passes through blind spot area based on blind spot estimation information and standard speed for preventing vehicle form coming into contact with elliptical model, see at least [0063] and [0068]), the one or more speed change plans each defining a speed change of the vehicle from the current position of the vehicle to the particular point, the one or more speed change plans each being configured to allow the vehicle to pass the particular point at a speed lower than the upper-limit speed (see at least Fig. 10 all the speed profiles are under the target blind-spot passing speed at the time of passing the estimated collision position);
Inaba does not disclose:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed, based on at least one of the one or more speed change plans, to determine whether a current speed of the vehicle is higher than, lower than, or matches a planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans, each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance before the vehicle reaches the particular point
execute a visualization control process of visualizing the virtual object each time the planned speed determination process is executed, the visualization control process being configured to allow a driver of the vehicle to recognize a risk of contact between the vehicle and the virtual object at least when the current speed of the vehicle higher than the planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans
However, Kubota teaches:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance before the vehicle reaches the particular point (warning point judgement means continues to monitor whether vehicle has reached a point at which the blind point judgement and speed judgement should be executed, see at least [0105]),
execute a visualization control process of visualizing the virtual object when the speed of the vehicle is determined as being higher than a speed defined by the one or more speed change plans (if it is determined that speed of vehicle is equal to or greater than the threshold value then image information is generated so as to include a virtual image of a pedestrian located in the blind spot, see at least [0090]), the visualization control process being configured to allow a driver who drives the vehicle to recognize a risk of the contact between the vehicle and the virtual object (virtual image information is produced and displayed if it is determined that warning should be given, see at least [0012] and [0021])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba by adding the virtual image information taught by Kubota with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “displaying information in a manner in which the information can be directly used by a driver in driving the vehicle, thereby further enhancing driving safety” (see [0009]).
Additionally, Chada teaches:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed, based on at least one of the one or more speed change plans, to determine whether a current speed of the vehicle is higher than, lower than, or matches a planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans, (a continuous driving feedback to determine whether current speed is below or above optimal speed, see at least page 10, section 3.7) *Examiner sets forth optimal speed is a planned speed and “continuous” indicates that the determination is made again and again
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba and the virtual image information taught by Kubota by adding the driving feedback based on optimal speed taught by Chada with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to calculate an optimal reference velocity for the entire driving route” (see page 3, paragraph 4) and allow a driver to effectively follow the optimal speed (see pages 10-11).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Inaba, Kubota, and Chada teach the elements above but Inaba does not disclose:
visualize the virtual object in a first manner when the current speed of the vehicle is higher than a speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans;
visualize the virtual object in a second manner when the current speed of the vehicle matches the speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans; and
visualize the virtual object in a third manner when the current speed of the vehicle is lower than the speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans
However, Kubota teaches:
visualize the virtual object in a first manner when the current speed of the vehicle is higher than a speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans (if it is determined that speed of vehicle is equal to or greater than the threshold value then image information is generated so as to include a virtual image of a pedestrian located in the blind spot, see at least [0090]),
visualize the virtual object in a third manner when the current speed of the vehicle is lower than the speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans (if running speed is not greater than the predetermined threshold, method ends, see at least [0137] and Fig. 7) *Examiner sets forth that because method ends, the image is not displayed
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba by adding the virtual image display taught by Kubota with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “displaying information in a manner in which the information can be directly used by a driver in driving the vehicle, thereby further enhancing driving safety” (see [0009]) by “judging whether or not to give the warning to the driver” (see [0010]).
Furthermore, Chada teaches:
visualize the virtual object in a first manner when the current speed of the vehicle is higher than a speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans (when vehicle needs to speed up, a green arrow and green current speed is used, see at least (e) in Fig. 5);
visualize the virtual object in a second manner when the current speed of the vehicle matches the speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans (when vehicle is within optimal speed, the current velocity is shown in black, see at least (d) in Fig. 5); and
visualize the virtual object in a third manner when the current speed of the vehicle is lower than the speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans (when vehicle needs to slow down, a red speed and red arrow are used, see at least (c) and (f) in Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba and the virtual image display taught by Kubota by adding the colored visual taught by Chada with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for visually providing feedback of a speed to a driver (see page 10 section 3.7).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Inaba, Kubota, and Chada teach the elements above but Inaba does not disclose:
the one or more processors are further configured to stop the visualization control process when the current speed of the vehicle is lower than the speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans
However, Kubota teaches:
the one or more processors are further configured to stop the visualization control process when the current speed of the vehicle is lower than the speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans (if running speed is not greater than the predetermined threshold, method ends, see at least [0137] and Fig. 7) *Examiner sets forth that because method ends, the image is not displayed
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba by adding the virtual image display taught by Kubota with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “displaying information in a manner in which the information can be directly used by a driver in driving the vehicle, thereby further enhancing driving safety” (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Inaba, Kubota, and Chada teach the elements above but Inaba does not disclose:
in the visualization control process, the one or more processors are further configured to intermittently visualize the virtual object in association with a real space or intermittently visualize the virtual object on map data.
However, Kubota teaches:
in the visualization control process, the one or more processors are further configured to intermittently visualize the virtual object in association with a real space or intermittently visualize the virtual object on map data (virtual image may be a blinking image, see at least [0114]) *Examiner sets forth blinking is an intermittent flashing of an image at a regular interval
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba by adding the virtual image display taught by Kubota with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “displaying information in a manner in which the information can be directly used by a driver in driving the vehicle, thereby further enhancing driving safety” (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 5, Inaba discloses:
A vehicle comprising a driving assistance apparatus configured to assist driving of the vehicle (vehicle 1 equipped with vehicle control device 10, see at least [0025]), the driving assistance apparatus being configured to:
set a position and a movement speed of a virtual object that is possibly to come out from a blind spot region present in a traveling direction of the vehicle (blind spot object estimating unit 11 detects blind spot area and determine risk of blind spot object 52 bolting out, see at least [0050] and [0064]; estimated speed of blind object 52 bolting out, see at least [0066] and Fig. 5; coordinates representing risk of blind spot object, see at least [0068]);
execute a particular point identification process of identifying, as a particular point, a point at which the traveling direction of the vehicle and a moving direction of the virtual object intersect (estimated collision position, see at least [0066] and Fig. 9);
execute an upper-limit speed setting process of setting, as an upper-limit speed, a speed that a speed of the vehicle reaches by deceleration and that is of an upper limit to allow for avoidance of contact between the vehicle and the virtual object at the particular point (based on desirable maximum deceleration rate, determining a target blind-spot passing speed before user vehicle passes through estimated collision position, see at least [0071]);
execute a speed change plan setting process of setting one or more speed change plans based on a current position of the vehicle (a plurality of speed profile candidates are calculated for the current speed to be reduced before the user vehicle passes through the estimated collision position, see at least [0071]), a distance from the current position of the vehicle to the particular point (distance to estimated collision position, see at least [0065]), a current speed of the vehicle (driving action candidate is calculated based on route information and a current vehicle speed so the user vehicle does not collide with moving body, see at least [0046], [0057], and [0071]), and the upper-limit speed (standard speed vehicle passes through blind spot area based on blind spot estimation information and standard speed for preventing vehicle form coming into contact with elliptical model, see at least [0063] and [0068]), the one or more speed change plans each defining a speed change of the vehicle from the current position of the vehicle to the particular point, the one or more speed change plans each being configured to allow the vehicle to pass the particular point at a speed lower than the upper-limit speed (see at least Fig. 10 all the speed profiles are under the target blind-spot passing speed at the time of passing the estimated collision position);
Inaba does not disclose:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed, based on at least one of the one or more speed change plans, to determine whether a current speed of the vehicle is higher than, lower than, or matches a planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans, each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance before the vehicle reaches the particular point
execute a visualization control process of visualizing the virtual object each time the planned speed determination process is executed, the visualization control process being configured to allow a driver of the vehicle to recognize a risk of contact between the vehicle and the virtual object at least when the current speed of the vehicle higher than the planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans
However, Kubota teaches:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance before the vehicle reaches the particular point (warning point judgement means continues to monitor whether vehicle has reached a point at which the blind point judgement and speed judgement should be executed, see at least [0105]),
execute a visualization control process of visualizing the virtual object when the speed of the vehicle is determined as being higher than a speed defined by the one or more speed change plans (if it is determined that speed of vehicle is equal to or greater than the threshold value then image information is generated so as to include a virtual image of a pedestrian located in the blind spot, see at least [0090]), the visualization control process being configured to allow a driver who drives the vehicle to recognize a risk of the contact between the vehicle and the virtual object (virtual image information is produced and displayed if it is determined that warning should be given, see at least [0012] and [0021])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba by adding the virtual image information taught by Kubota with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “displaying information in a manner in which the information can be directly used by a driver in driving the vehicle, thereby further enhancing driving safety” (see [0009]).
Additionally, Chada teaches:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed, based on at least one of the one or more speed change plans, to determine whether a current speed of the vehicle is higher than, lower than, or matches a planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans, (a continuous driving feedback to determine whether current speed is below or above optimal speed, see at least page 10, section 3.7) *Examiner sets forth optimal speed is a planned speed and “continuous” indicates that the determination is made again and again
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba and the virtual image information taught by Kubota by adding the driving feedback based on optimal speed taught by Chada with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to calculate an optimal reference velocity for the entire driving route” (see page 3, paragraph 4) and allow a driver to effectively follow the optimal speed (see pages 10-11).
Regarding claim 6, Inaba discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable recording medium containing a computer program to be applied to a driving assistance apparatus (ROM stores programs for implementing various functions and CPU executes programs loaded from ROM onto RAM, see at least [0027]), the driving assistance apparatus being configured to assist driving of a vehicle (vehicle 1 equipped with vehicle control device 10, see at least [0025]), the computer program causing, when executed by a computer (vehicle control device 10 is a computer including a CPU, see at least [0027]), the computer to implement a method, the method comprising:
setting a position and a movement speed of a virtual object that is possibly to come out from a blind spot region present in a traveling direction of the vehicle (blind spot object estimating unit 11 detects blind spot area and determine risk of blind spot object 52 bolting out, see at least [0050] and [0064]; estimated speed of blind object 52 bolting out, see at least [0066] and Fig. 5; coordinates representing risk of blind spot object, see at least [0068]);
executing a particular point identification process of identifying, as a particular point, a point at which the traveling direction of the vehicle and a moving direction of the virtual object intersect (estimated collision position, see at least [0066] and Fig. 9);
executing an upper-limit speed setting process of setting, as an upper-limit speed, a speed that a speed of the vehicle reaches by deceleration and that is of an upper limit to allow for avoidance of contact between the vehicle and the virtual object at the particular point (based on desirable maximum deceleration rate, determining a target blind-spot passing speed before user vehicle passes through estimated collision position, see at least [0071]);
executing a speed change plan setting process of setting one or more speed change plans based on a current position of the vehicle (a plurality of speed profile candidates are calculated for the current speed to be reduced before the user vehicle passes through the estimated collision position, see at least [0071]), a distance from the current position of the vehicle to the particular point (distance to estimated collision position, see at least [0065]), a current speed of the vehicle (driving action candidate is calculated based on route information and a current vehicle speed so the user vehicle does not collide with moving body, see at least [0046], [0057], and [0071]), and the upper-limit speed (standard speed vehicle passes through blind spot area based on blind spot estimation information and standard speed for preventing vehicle form coming into contact with elliptical model, see at least [0063] and [0068]), the one or more speed change plans each defining a speed change of the vehicle from the current position of the vehicle to the particular point, the one or more speed change plans each being configured to allow the vehicle to pass the particular point at a speed lower than the upper-limit speed (see at least Fig. 10 all the speed profiles are under the target blind-spot passing speed at the time of passing the estimated collision position);
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed, based on at least one of the one or more speed change plans, to determine whether a current speed of the vehicle is higher than, lower than, or matches a planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans, each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance before the vehicle reaches the particular point
Inaba does not disclose:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed, based on at least one of the one or more speed change plans, to determine whether a current speed of the vehicle is higher than, lower than, or matches a planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans, each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance before the vehicle reaches the particular point
execute a visualization control process of visualizing the virtual object each time the planned speed determination process is executed, the visualization control process being configured to allow a driver of the vehicle to recognize a risk of contact between the vehicle and the virtual object at least when the current speed of the vehicle higher than the planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans
However, Kubota teaches:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance before the vehicle reaches the particular point (warning point judgement means continues to monitor whether vehicle has reached a point at which the blind point judgement and speed judgement should be executed, see at least [0105]),
execute a visualization control process of visualizing the virtual object when the speed of the vehicle is determined as being higher than a speed defined by the one or more speed change plans (if it is determined that speed of vehicle is equal to or greater than the threshold value then image information is generated so as to include a virtual image of a pedestrian located in the blind spot, see at least [0090]), the visualization control process being configured to allow a driver who drives the vehicle to recognize a risk of the contact between the vehicle and the virtual object (virtual image information is produced and displayed if it is determined that warning should be given, see at least [0012] and [0021])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba by adding the virtual image information taught by Kubota with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “displaying information in a manner in which the information can be directly used by a driver in driving the vehicle, thereby further enhancing driving safety” (see [0009]).
Additionally, Chada teaches:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed, based on at least one of the one or more speed change plans, to determine whether a current speed of the vehicle is higher than, lower than, or matches a planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans, (a continuous driving feedback to determine whether current speed is below or above optimal speed, see at least page 10, section 3.7) *Examiner sets forth optimal speed is a planned speed and “continuous” indicates that the determination is made again and again
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba and the virtual image information taught by Kubota by adding the driving feedback based on optimal speed taught by Chada with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to calculate an optimal reference velocity for the entire driving route” (see page 3, paragraph 4) and allow a driver to effectively follow the optimal speed (see pages 10-11).
Regarding claim 7, Inaba discloses:
A driving assistance method of assisting driving of a vehicle by a driving assistance system configured to assist the driving of the vehicle (vehicle 1 equipped with vehicle control device 10, see at least [0025]), the driving assistance method comprising causing the driving assistance system to:
set a position and a movement speed of a virtual object that is possibly to come out from a blind spot region present in a traveling direction of the vehicle (blind spot object estimating unit 11 detects blind spot area and determine risk of blind spot object 52 bolting out, see at least [0050] and [0064]; estimated speed of blind object 52 bolting out, see at least [0066] and Fig. 5; coordinates representing risk of blind spot object, see at least [0068]);
execute a particular point identification process of identifying, as a particular point, a point at which the traveling direction of the vehicle and a moving direction of the virtual object intersect (estimated collision position, see at least [0066] and Fig. 9);
execute an upper-limit speed setting process of setting, as an upper-limit speed, a speed that a speed of the vehicle reaches by deceleration and that is of an upper limit to allow for avoidance of contact between the vehicle and the virtual object at the particular point (based on desirable maximum deceleration rate, determining a target blind-spot passing speed before user vehicle passes through estimated collision position, see at least [0071]);
execute a speed change plan setting process of setting one or more speed change plans based on a current position of the vehicle (a plurality of speed profile candidates are calculated for the current speed to be reduced before the user vehicle passes through the estimated collision position, see at least [0071]), a distance from the current position of the vehicle to the particular point (distance to estimated collision position, see at least [0065]), a current speed of the vehicle (driving action candidate is calculated based on route information and a current vehicle speed so the user vehicle does not collide with moving body, see at least [0046], [0057], and [0071]), and the upper-limit speed (standard speed vehicle passes through blind spot area based on blind spot estimation information and standard speed for preventing vehicle form coming into contact with elliptical model, see at least [0063] and [0068]), the one or more speed change plans each defining a speed change of the vehicle from the current position of the vehicle to the particular point, the one or more speed change plans each being configured to allow the vehicle to pass the particular point at a speed lower than the upper-limit speed (see at least Fig. 10 all the speed profiles are under the target blind-spot passing speed at the time of passing the estimated collision position); execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed, based on at least one of the one or more speed change plans, to determine whether a current speed of the vehicle is higher than, lower than, or matches a planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans, each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance before the vehicle reaches the particular point
Inaba does not disclose:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed, based on at least one of the one or more speed change plans, to determine whether a current speed of the vehicle is higher than, lower than, or matches a planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans, each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance before the vehicle reaches the particular point
execute a visualization control process of visualizing the virtual object each time the planned speed determination process is executed, the visualization control process being configured to allow a driver of the vehicle to recognize a risk of contact between the vehicle and the virtual object at least when the current speed of the vehicle higher than the planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans
However, Kubota teaches:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed each time the vehicle travels a predetermined distance before the vehicle reaches the particular point (warning point judgement means continues to monitor whether vehicle has reached a point at which the blind point judgement and speed judgement should be executed, see at least [0105]),
execute a visualization control process of visualizing the virtual object when the speed of the vehicle is determined as being higher than a speed defined by the one or more speed change plans (if it is determined that speed of vehicle is equal to or greater than the threshold value then image information is generated so as to include a virtual image of a pedestrian located in the blind spot, see at least [0090]), the visualization control process being configured to allow a driver who drives the vehicle to recognize a risk of the contact between the vehicle and the virtual object (virtual image information is produced and displayed if it is determined that warning should be given, see at least [0012] and [0021])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba by adding the virtual image information taught by Kubota with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “displaying information in a manner in which the information can be directly used by a driver in driving the vehicle, thereby further enhancing driving safety” (see [0009]).
Additionally, Chada teaches:
execute a planned speed determination process that is repeatedly executed, based on at least one of the one or more speed change plans, to determine whether a current speed of the vehicle is higher than, lower than, or matches a planned speed defined by the at least one of the one or more speed change plans, (a continuous driving feedback to determine whether current speed is below or above optimal speed, see at least page 10, section 3.7) *Examiner sets forth optimal speed is a planned speed and “continuous” indicates that the determination is made again and again
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba and the virtual image information taught by Kubota by adding the driving feedback based on optimal speed taught by Chada with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to calculate an optimal reference velocity for the entire driving route” (see page 3, paragraph 4) and allow a driver to effectively follow the optimal speed (see pages 10-11).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Inaba, Kubota, and Chada teaches the elements above but Inaba and Kubota do not teach:
in the visualization control process, the one or more processors are further configured to change at least one of a color, brightness, and a size of an image of the virtual object according to whether the speed of the vehicle is higher than, matches, or is lower than the speed defined by the one or more speed change plans
However, Chada teaches:
in the visualization control process, the one or more processors are further configured to change at least one of a color, brightness, and a size of an image of the virtual object according to whether the speed of the vehicle is higher than, matches, or is lower than the speed defined by the one or more speed change plans (when vehicle needs to speed up, a green arrow and green current speed is used, see at least (e) in Fig. 5; when vehicle is within optimal speed, the current velocity is shown in black, see at least (d) in Fig. 5; when vehicle needs to slow down, a red speed and red arrow are used, see at least (c) and (f) in Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba and the virtual image display taught by Kubota by adding the colored visual taught by Chada with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for visually providing feedback of a speed to a driver (see page 10 section 3.7).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Inaba, Kubota, and Chada teaches the elements above but Inaba does not disclose:
in the visualization control process, the one or more processors are further configured to visualize the virtual object at a position in the blind spot region or at the particular point in association with a real space from a viewpoint of a driver of the vehicle
However, Kubota teaches:
in the visualization control process, the one or more processors are further configured to visualize the virtual object at a position in the blind spot region or at the particular point in association with a real space from a viewpoint of a driver of the vehicle (display an image indicating the presence of the pedestrian in an area corresponding to a blind spot behind the vehicle, see at least [0090] and Fig. 8)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba by adding the virtual image information taught by Kubota with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “displaying information in a manner in which the information can be directly used by a driver in driving the vehicle, thereby further enhancing driving safety” (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Inaba, Kubota, and Chada teaches the elements above but Inaba does not disclose:
based on a result of the planned speed determination process, the one or more processors are further configured to determine a risk of contact between the vehicle and the virtual object, to execute the visualization control process when the risk is equal to or higher than a predetermined level, and to stop the visualization control process when the risk is lower than the predetermined level
However, Kubota teaches:
based on a result of the planned speed determination process, the one or more processors are further configured to determine a risk of contact between the vehicle and the virtual object (when vehicle is going to turn at a high speed and a motorcycle appears, the possibility that driver cannot have sufficient time to handle the situation is high, thus, when vehicle is travelling at high speed a warning is required, see at least [0015]), to execute the visualization control process when the risk is equal to or higher than a predetermined level (if it is determined that speed of vehicle is equal to or greater than the threshold value then image information is generated so as to include a virtual image of a pedestrian located in the blind spot, see at least [0090]) , and to stop the visualization control process when the risk is lower than the predetermined level, (if running speed is not greater than the predetermined threshold, method ends, see at least [0137] and Fig. 7) *Examiner sets forth that because method ends, the image is not displayed
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blind spot object estimation and speed profiles disclosed by Inaba by adding the virtual image display taught by Kubota with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “displaying information in a manner in which the information can be directly used by a driver in driving the vehicle, thereby further enhancing driving safety” (see [0009]) by “judging whether or not to give the warning to the driver” (see [0010]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662