DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of Remarks, filed on 03/31/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Specifically, Kobetz and Hori do not teach or suggest "wherein the vulnerable road user is selected from a group consisting of a pedestrian, a cyclist, a wheelchair user and an e-scooter, wherein the vulnerable road user is referred to as a VRU." In accordance with this limitation of the claim, all of "a pedestrian, a cyclist, a wheelchair user and an e-scooter" have to be included in the group from which the VRU is selected. In contrast to this limitation of the claim, Kobetz merely discloses pedestrians, cyclists, and other motor vehicles (e.g., trucks) as possible other road users”. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. In response to applicant’s argument, the limitation “the vulnerable road user is selected from a group consisting of a pedestrian, a cyclist, a wheelchair user and an e-scooter”, does not require all of "a pedestrian, a cyclist, a wheelchair user and an e-scooter", because the vulnerable road user is selected from that group, and only one type from that group is needed. Kobetz already discloses pedestrians, cyclist, which reads on that limitation.
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.
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, 3-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobetz (DE102020005832 A1 - IDS) in view of Hori et al. (US 2021/0247201 A1).
As to claims 1, 9 and 10, Kobetz discloses a driving assistance system for a vehicle, comprising: an object identification module configured to carry out an object identification process in a vehicle environment based on environmental data from an environmental sensor system of the vehicle (para. 0002); an analysis module configured to validate a categorization of an object as a vulnerable road user (para. 0006-0008, cyclist, pedestrian), the categorization having been carried out by the object identification module, wherein the analysis module is configured to carry out validation based on at least one movement property of the object (para. 0006-0008, 0013); and a driving assistance module configured to carry out driving assistance for automated driving based on the validation (para. 0008); wherein the at least one movement property comprises a speed of the object (para. 0006-0008), including several frames of the environmental sensor system (para. 0002); wherein the vulnerable road user is selected from a group consisting of a pedestrian, a cyclist, a wheelchair user and an e-scooter, wherein the vulnerable road user is referred to as a VRU (para. 0006, 0008).
Kobetz does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one movement property comprises a movement path of the object over time, and at least one of a relative position of the object in relation to the vehicle or an absolute position of the object. However, Hori teaches wherein the at least one movement property comprises a speed of the object (para. 0104-0105), a movement path of the object over time (para. 0104-0105), including several frames of the environmental sensor system (para. 0063), and at least one of a relative position of the object in relation to the vehicle or an absolute position of the object (para. 0106, 0115, 0125). Therefore, given the teaching of Hori, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Kobetz, by employing the well-known or conventional features of trajectory and relative position of the object, to classify the object correctly.
As to claim 3, Kobetz further discloses wherein the analysis module is configured to: reject the categorization of the object as the vulnerable road user carried out by the object identification module in a case in which the at least one movement property deviates from a characteristic movement behavior of vulnerable road users; and confirm the categorization of the object as the vulnerable road user carried out by the object identification module in a case in which the at least one movement property corresponds to the characteristic movement behavior of vulnerable road users (para. 0006-0008).
As to claim 4, Kobetz further discloses wherein the driving assistance module is configured to: deactivate the driving assistance for automated driving or block the driving assistance from being activated in a case in which the categorization of the object as the vulnerable road user carried out by the object identification module is confirmed by the analysis module; and leave the driving assistance for automated driving activated or permit activation thereof in a case in which the categorization of the object as the vulnerable road user carried out by the object identification module is rejected by the analysis module (para. 0006-0008).
As to claim 5, Kobetz further discloses wherein the analysis module is configured to reject the categorization of the object as the vulnerable road user carried out by the object identification module in a case in which an object speed of the object is equal to or greater than a threshold and the object moves away from the vehicle or toward the vehicle, wherein the threshold is 30 km/h or more, 35 km/h or more, 40 km/h or more, 45 km/h or more, or 50 km/h or more (para. 0006, 0013).
As to claim 6, Kobetz further discloses wherein the analysis module is configured to determine in a context of the validation whether the vulnerable road user is a vulnerable road user relevant to a driving behavior of the vehicle in a case in which the vulnerable road user identified in the object identification process is validated as such (para. 0006).
As to claim 8, Kobetz further discloses motor vehicle comprising the driving assistance system according to claim 1 (para. 0005).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights