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 Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 04/16/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended; claims 5-8 and 17-19 have been canceled; no claims have been added or withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 9-16, and 20 are now pending and under consideration.
Applicant asserts on pages 8-9 of the remarks that it would be improper to maintain the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2022-0132367 A to Maeng in view of the amendments to the claim. The examiner does not disagree that Maeng alone fails to teach or suggest each and every element of amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the amended claim is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng in view of KR 1020210158465 A to Mun et al.
Applicant goes on to make preemptive arguments against rejection of amended claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng in view of Mun on pages 9-12 of the remarks, first asserting on page 10 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image1.png
270
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully cannot agree with the premise set forth by Applicant’s remarks. It is unmistakable from pages 6-7 of the non-final Office Action mailed 01/16/2026 that a closed circuit television (CCTV) camera 110 was interpreted as the claimed “surveillance camera,” and it is unclear why Applicant’s remarks elect to misconstrue the interpretations of the prior art rejection. Therefore, the examiner respectfully cannot agree with the premise set forth by Applicant’s remarks
Applicant goes on to assert on page 10 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image2.png
248
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the non-final Office Action mailed 01/16/2026, and it is unclear why Applicant has made such assertions regarding Maeng.
Next, Applicant asserts on page 11 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image3.png
222
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, Applicant’s remarks selectively ignore the detailed citations and interpretations of the non-final Office Action in order to manufacture a notion of difference between Maeng and claim 1. The non-final Office Action unmistakably set forth a supported interpretation of Maeng that the control unit 250 is structured to perform functions synthesize a preset pedestrian character image at an approximate position (e.g., an approximate left position) (e.g., “location information”) on an image in front of the vehicle 2 when the pedestrian is in front of the vehicle 2 (e.g., when the pedestrian is on a left side of a vehicle front) (e.g., “indicating that the pedestrian is located at left or right of the vehicle”), where the image in front of the vehicle 2 is acquired by a black box camera 210 while the vehicle 2 is running (e.g., “based on a driving direction of the vehicle”) based on receiving of the caution signal (or the warning signal) (which includes pedestrian location information) (e.g., “when the pedestrian is recognized in the image data received from the surveillance camera”) (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0008, 0021-0023, 0041-0044, 0055, 0056-0057, 0059 & 0063 of Maeng), such that Maeng fully teaches a “processor” of a “driving assistance device” that is configured to “generate location information indicating that the pedestrian is located at left or right of the vehicle based on a driving direction of the vehicle when the pedestrian is recognized in the image data received from the surveillance camera,” as recited by claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant then appears to cite to the prior art rejection of original claim 5 from the non-final Office Action on page 11 of the remarks, asserting that:
PNG
media_image4.png
472
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner does not disagree that Maeng appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the location information of the pedestrian further includes a distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian, as now required by amended claim 1.
Regarding amended claim 1, the examiner further notes that Maeng also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the processor is further configured to determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, control the display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, and control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level.
The examiner notes that Mun teaches an analogous driving assistance device which determines a distance between a vehicle and a pedestrian as location information (as discussed by at least ¶ 0013-0014, 0023-0024, 0034, 0043-0045 & 0054-0067).
The examiner further notes that Mun further teaches that a processor of the analogous driving assistance device is configured to determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, and control the vehicle based on the possibility of the collision (as discussed by at least ¶ 0013-0014, 0023-0024, 0034, 0043-0045 & 0054-0067), including to control the display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, and control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level [as discussed by at least ¶ 0013-0014, 0023-0024, 0034, 0043-0045 & 0054-0067; for example, a head up display (HUD) displays a warning (e.g., “collision risk warning”) when a distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian is greater than a first distance but less than a second distance larger than the first distance (e.g., “when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level”), where automated emergency braking (AEB) is implemented when the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian less than the first distance (e.g., “when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level”)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the driving assistance device of Maeng with the teachings of Mun such that the location information of the pedestrian further includes a distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian because Mun further teaches that the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian is beneficially usable to implement AEB of the vehicle in the child protection zone to prevent an accident between the vehicle and the pedestrian (as discussed by at least ¶ 0058-0067 of Mun).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the driving assistance device of Maeng with the teachings of Mun such that the processor is further configured to determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, control the display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, and control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level, because Mun further teaches that the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and the driving speed of the vehicle are beneficially usable to determine a possibility of collision between the vehicle and the pedestrian and to implement the AEB of the vehicle in the child protection zone to prevent the collision between the vehicle and the pedestrian (as discussed by at least ¶ 0058-0067 of Mun), including by implementing the AEB of the vehicle when a distance-based risk level is relatively high, or by instead displaying a warning, via a HUD, when the distance-based risk level is relatively low, to prevent the collision between the vehicle and the pedestrian (as discussed by at least ¶ 0058-0067 of Mun).
Therefore, the ground of rejection of claim 1 has been updated in order to sufficiently address the amendments to the claim.
Applicant further asserts on page 12 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image5.png
146
622
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although amended independent claim 14 includes method steps which overlap with portions of the “driving assistance device” of amended claim 1, claim 14 is replete with contingent limitations (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II). Because Applicant’s remarks ignore the interpretations of the prior art rejection of the non-final Office Action identifying said contingent limitations of claim 14, it can only be understood that Applicant agrees with said interpretations. Even so, it is unclear why Applicant’s remarks assert that the arguments against claim 1 are repeatable against claim 14. Regardless, the ground of rejection of claim 14 has been updated, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng in view of Mun, in order to sufficiently address the amendments to the claim.
Also, independent claim 20 substantially differs from each of claims 1 and 14, especially due to improper inclusion of “new matter” via “a detection system comprising a surveillance camera having a sensing field of view within a child protection zone, a controller, and a communication module, the detection system configured to recognize a pedestrian based on image data received from the surveillance camera having a sensing field of view within a child protection zone, acquire location information of the pedestrian based on the image data received from the surveillance camera, and transmit the location information of the pedestrian to a vehicle entering into or travelling in the child protection zone through V2X communication, determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, control a display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level” in lines 2-12. As best understood by the examiner, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach, or render obvious, claim 20 specifically due to the improper inclusion of the substantial “new matter” of claim 20, as amended 04/16/2026, which is not intended to indicate presence of allowable subject matter in the amended claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a detection system […] configured to […] determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, control a display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level” in claim 20 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20, as amended, now recites “a detection system comprising a surveillance camera having a sensing field of view within a child protection zone, a controller, and a communication module, the detection system configured to recognize a pedestrian based on image data received from the surveillance camera having a sensing field of view within a child protection zone, acquire location information of the pedestrian based on the image data received from the surveillance camera, and transmit the location information of the pedestrian to a vehicle entering into or travelling in the child protection zone through V2X communication, determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, control a display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level” in lines 2-12; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s specification provides sufficient written description support for “a detection system […] configured to […] determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, control a display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level.” As best understood by the examiner, Applicant’s specification only differently discloses that a driver assistance device 230 is structured to perform functions to “determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, control a display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level.” Applicant’s drawings also fail to show “a detection system […] configured to […] determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, control a display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level.” Therefore, Applicant’s amendments have improper introduced “new matter” to claim 20, such that the claim now fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 refers to “the location information of the pedestrian indicating whether the pedestrian is located at left or right” in lines 12-13; however, claim 20 previously introduces “location information of the pedestrian” in line 4 and previously refers to “the location information of the pedestrian” in each of lines 5-6, lines 9-10, and lines 10-11, and it is unclear whether the “location information of the pedestrian indicating whether the pedestrian is located at left or right” in lines 12-13 is intended to be the same as or different from the “location information of the pedestrian” in line 4 and/or in lines 5-6 and/or in lines 9-10 and/or in lines 10-11. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
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, 2, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2022-0132367 A to Maeng (hereinafter: “Maeng”) in view of KR 1020210158465 A to Mun et al. (hereinafter: “Mun”).
With respect to claim 1, Maeng teaches a driving assistance device (100 & 200 together) of a vehicle (2), comprising: a transceiver configured to receive image data from a surveillance camera (110) having a constant sensing field of view within a child protection zone [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 2 & 9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0008, 0013, 0017-0020, 0024-0027, 0047-0050, 0055 & 0065, a control unit 150 of the school zone monitoring apparatus 100 of the “driving assistance device” is shown (e.g., see Fig. 9) to be in two-way communication with the closed circuit television (CCTV) camera 110 so as to be definable as a “transceiver” of the “driving assistance device,” where the control unit 150 is structured to perform functions to receive a school zone image (e.g., “image data”) obtained by the CCTV camera 110, where the CCTV camera 110 obtains the school zone image by photographing a preset area within a child protection zone]; and a processor (250) configured to recognize a pedestrian based on the image data received from the surveillance camera [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0008-0009, 0013, 0019-0022, 0028, 0030-0032, 0041-0042, 0051, 0053-0055, 0060-0061 & 0063, the control unit 250 of the vehicle monitoring apparatus 200 of the “driving assistance device” is structured to perform functions to receive a caution signal (or a warning signal) from the school zone monitoring apparatus 100, where the caution signal (or the warning signal) is generated by the control unit 150 based on the school zone image and enables the control unit 250 to recognize a pedestrian in the preset area], generate location information indicating that the pedestrian is located at left or right of the vehicle based on a driving direction of the vehicle when the pedestrian is recognized in the image data received from the surveillance camera [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0008, 0021-0023, 0041-0044, 0055, 0056-0057, 0059 & 0063, the control unit 250 is structured to perform functions synthesize a preset pedestrian character image at an approximate position (e.g., an approximate left position) (e.g., “location information”) on an image in front of the vehicle 2 when the pedestrian is in front of the vehicle 2 (e.g., when the pedestrian is on a left side of a vehicle front) (e.g., “indicating that the pedestrian is located at left or right of the vehicle”), where the image in front of the vehicle 2 is acquired by a black box camera 210 while the vehicle 2 is running (e.g., “based on a driving direction of the vehicle”) based on receiving of the caution signal (or the warning signal) (which includes pedestrian location information) (e.g., “when the pedestrian is recognized in the image data received from the surveillance camera”)], and control a display device of the vehicle to display the location information of the pedestrian indicating whether the pedestrian is located at the left or right of the vehicle [as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 2 & 9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0008, 0022-0023, 0043-0044, 0056, 0059 & 0063, the control unit 250 is structured to perform functions to control a heads-up display (HUD) 230 (or an in-vehicle display device) (e.g., “display device”) of the vehicle 2 to display the preset pedestrian character image synthesized at the approximate position (e.g., the approximate left position) on the image in front of the vehicle 2].
Maeng appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the location information of the pedestrian further includes a distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian.
Maeng also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the processor is further configured to determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, control the display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, and control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level.
Mun teaches an analogous driving assistance device which determines a distance between a vehicle and a pedestrian as location information (as discussed by at least ¶ 0013-0014, 0023-0024, 0034, 0043-0045 & 0054-0067).
Mun further teaches that a processor of the analogous driving assistance device is configured to determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, and control the vehicle based on the possibility of the collision (as discussed by at least ¶ 0013-0014, 0023-0024, 0034, 0043-0045 & 0054-0067), including to control the display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, and control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level [as discussed by at least ¶ 0013-0014, 0023-0024, 0034, 0043-0045 & 0054-0067; for example, a head up display (HUD) displays a warning (e.g., “collision risk warning”) when a distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian is greater than a first distance but less than a second distance larger than the first distance (e.g., “when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level”), where automated emergency braking (AEB) is implemented when the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian less than the first distance (e.g., “when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level”)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the driving assistance device of Maeng with the teachings of Mun such that the location information of the pedestrian further includes a distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian because Mun further teaches that the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian is beneficially usable to implement AEB of the vehicle in the child protection zone to prevent an accident between the vehicle and the pedestrian (as discussed by at least ¶ 0058-0067 of Mun).
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the driving assistance device of Maeng with the teachings of Mun such that the processor is further configured to determine a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, control the display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, and control to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level, because Mun further teaches that the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and the driving speed of the vehicle are beneficially usable to determine a possibility of collision between the vehicle and the pedestrian and to implement the AEB of the vehicle in the child protection zone to prevent the collision between the vehicle and the pedestrian (as discussed by at least ¶ 0058-0067 of Mun), including by implementing the AEB of the vehicle when a distance-based risk level is relatively high, or by instead displaying a warning, via a HUD, when the distance-based risk level is relatively low, to prevent the collision between the vehicle and the pedestrian (as discussed by at least ¶ 0058-0067 of Mun).
With respect to claim 2, Maeng modified supra teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the pedestrian is located at the left or right of the vehicle based on metadata of the image data received from the surveillance camera and driving information of the vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0019-0020, 0026-0032, 0036-0044, 0047-0050 & 0057-0059 of Maeng).
With respect to claim 9, Maeng modified supra teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1; however, Maeng appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the processor is configured to control to output an audio representing the location information of the pedestrian.
Mun further teaches that the processor of the analogous driving assistance device is configured to control to output an audio representing the location information of the pedestrian [as discussed by at least ¶ 0008, 0013-0014, 0022-0024, 0026-0027, 0034, 0043-0045 & 0054-0067; for example, a processor determines a distance between a vehicle and a pedestrian based, in part, on output of a camera sensor, determines whether the distance is greater than a first distance but less than a second distance larger than the first distance or less than the first distance, and outputs a visual warning via a head up display (HUD) and a sound-based warning based on the distance with respect to the first distance and the second distance].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the driving assistance device of Maeng with the teachings of Mun such that the location information of the pedestrian further includes a distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian to beneficially warn a driver of the vehicle in the child protection zone to prevent an accident between the vehicle and the pedestrian (as discussed by at least ¶ 0058-0067 of Mun).
With respect to claim 10, Maeng modified supra teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1; however, Maeng appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the processor is configured to classify a type of the pedestrian recognized in the image data received from the surveillance camera and control the display device to display information related to the type of the pedestrian.
Mun further teaches that the processor of the analogous driving assistance device is configured to classify a type of a pedestrian recognized in the image data received from a surveillance camera and control a display device to display information related to the type of the pedestrian [as discussed by at least ¶ 0008, 0013-0014, 0022-0024, 0026-0027, 0034, 0043-0045 & 0054-0067; for example, the processor determines a distance between a vehicle and a pedestrian based, in part, on output of a camera sensor, determines whether the distance is greater than a first distance but less than a second distance larger than the first distance (such that a “type of the pedestrian” is a “relatively far” pedestrian type) or less than the first distance (such that the “type of the pedestrian” is a “relatively close” pedestrian type), and displays a warning (e.g., “information related to the type of the pedestrian”) via a head up display (HUD) (and outputs a sound-based warning) based on the distance with respect to the first distance and the second distance].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the driving assistance device of Maeng with the teachings of Mun such that the location information of the pedestrian further includes a distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian to beneficially warn a driver of the vehicle in the child protection zone to prevent an accident between the vehicle and the pedestrian (as discussed by at least ¶ 0058-0067 of Mun).
With respect to claim 11, Maeng modified supra teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to control to output an audio representing the information related to the type of the pedestrian recognized in the image data received from the surveillance camera (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 10).
With respect to claim 12, Maeng modified supra teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the image data is received from the surveillance camera through vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication (e.g., via 140 & 240 of Maeng).
With respect to claim 13, Maeng modified supra teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the display device comprises at least one of a cluster display, a center fascia display, or a head-up display (HUD) (e.g., HUD 230 of Maeng, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1; because a cluster display, a center fascia display, and a HUD are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 14, Maeng teaches a method performed by a driving assistance device (100 & 200 together) of a vehicle (2) configured to communicate with a surveillance camera (110), the driving assistance method comprising: determining whether a vehicle (2) enters or is located in a child protection zone [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0009, 0017-0020, 0026-0027, 0031-0032, 0047, 0055 & 0065, the vehicle 2 is determined to be within a child protection zone; because determining whether a vehicle enters a child protection zone and determining whether a vehicle is located in a child protection zone are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives); receiving image data from the surveillance camera having a sensing field of view within the child protection zone when it is determined that the vehicle enters or is located in the child protection zone [the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and “receiving image data from the surveillance camera having a sensing field of view within the child protection zone” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed method at times including when the condition “when it is determined that the vehicle enters or is located in the child protection zone” is not met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when “determining whether a vehicle enters or is located in a child protection zone” differently results in no determination that the vehicle enters or is located in the child protection zone), such that “receiving image data from the surveillance camera having a sensing field of view within the child protection zone when it is determined that the vehicle enters or is located in the child protection zone” does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation—note: to avoid interpretation of a contingent limitation in this instance, the examiner suggests amending “determining whether a vehicle enters or is located in a child protection zone” to instead recite something like --determining that a vehicle enters or is located in a child protection zone--; even so, for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 2 & 9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0001-0008, 0013, 0017-0020, 0024-0027, 0047-0050, 0055 & 0065, a school zone image (e.g., “image data”) is received the CCTV camera 110 at times including when the vehicle 2 is determined to be located in a preset area within the child protection zone, where the CCTV camera 110 obtains the school zone image by photographing the preset area]; recognizing a pedestrian based on the image data received from the surveillance camera [“recognizing a pedestrian based on the image data received from the surveillance camera” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed method at times including when “receiving image data from the surveillance camera having a sensing field of view within the child protection zone” is not performed as a step of the claimed method at times including when the condition “when it is determined that the vehicle enters or is located in the child protection zone” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “recognizing a pedestrian based on the image data received from the surveillance camera” does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claimed method under broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0008-0009, 0013, 0019-0022, 0028, 0030-0032, 0041-0042, 0051, 0053-0055, 0060-0061 & 0063, a pedestrian is recognized in the preset area based on the school zone image]; generating location information of the pedestrian indicating whether the pedestrian is located at left or right of the vehicle based on a driving direction of the vehicle when the pedestrian is recognized in the image data received from the surveillance camera [“generating location information of the pedestrian indicating whether the pedestrian is located at left or right of the vehicle based on a driving direction of the vehicle” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed method at times including when “receiving image data from the surveillance camera having a sensing field of view within the child protection zone; [and] recognizing a pedestrian based on the image data received from the surveillance camera” are not performed as steps of the claimed method at times including when the condition “when it is determined that the vehicle enters or is located in the child protection zone” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “generating location information of the pedestrian indicating whether the pedestrian is located at left or right of the vehicle based on a driving direction of the vehicle when the pedestrian is recognized in the image data received from the surveillance camera” does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0008, 0021-0023, 0041-0044, 0055, 0056-0057, 0059 & 0063, an approximate position (e.g., an approximate left position) (e.g., “location information”) is synthesized (e.g., “generating”) on an image in front of the vehicle 2 when the pedestrian is in front of the vehicle 2 (e.g., when the pedestrian is on a left side of a vehicle front) (e.g., “indicating that the pedestrian is located at left or right of the vehicle”), where the image in front of the vehicle 2 is acquired by a black box camera 210 while the vehicle 2 is running (e.g., “based on a driving direction of the vehicle”) based on receiving of a caution signal (or a warning signal) (which includes pedestrian location information) (e.g., “when the pedestrian is recognized in the image data received from the surveillance camera”)]; and outputting the location information of the pedestrian indicating whether the pedestrian is located at the left or right of the vehicle [“outputting the location information of the pedestrian indicating whether the pedestrian is located at the left or right of the vehicle” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed method at times including when “receiving image data from the surveillance camera having a sensing field of view within the child protection zone; recognizing a pedestrian based on the image data received from the surveillance camera; [and] generating location information of the pedestrian indicating whether the pedestrian is located at left or right of the vehicle based on a driving direction of the vehicle when the pedestrian is recognized in the image data received from the surveillance camera” are not performed as steps of the claimed method at times including when the condition “when it is determined that the vehicle enters or is located in the child protection zone” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “outputting the location information of the pedestrian indicating whether the pedestrian is located at the left or right of the vehicle” does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 2 & 9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0008, 0022-0023, 0043-0044, 0056, 0059 & 0063, the preset pedestrian character image synthesized at the approximate position (e.g., the approximate left position) on the image in front of the vehicle 2 is outputted to a heads-up display (HUD) 230 (or an in-vehicle display device) of the vehicle 2].
Maeng appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the location information of the pedestrian further includes a distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian.
Maeng also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the method further includes: determining a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle; controlling the vehicle based on the possibility of the collision, comprising controlling the display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, and controlling to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level [note: neither of “controlling the display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level” and “controlling to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level” would necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed method at times including when neither of the conditions “when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level” and “when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level” are met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when the possibility of the collision is only less than the first risk level during performing of the claimed method), such that “controlling the display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, and controlling to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level” are contingent limitations which do not necessarily further limit the scope of the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above)].
Mun teaches determining, via an analogous driving assistance device, a distance between a vehicle and a pedestrian as location information (as discussed by at least ¶ 0013-0014, 0023-0024, 0034, 0043-0045 & 0054-0067).
Mun further teaches that determining, via a processor of the analogous driving assistance device, a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle, and controlling the vehicle based on the possibility of the collision (as discussed by at least ¶ 0013-0014, 0023-0024, 0034, 0043-0045 & 0054-0067), including controlling the display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, and controlling to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level [as discussed by at least ¶ 0013-0014, 0023-0024, 0034, 0043-0045 & 0054-0067; for example, a head up display (HUD) displays a warning (e.g., “collision risk warning”) when a distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian is greater than a first distance but less than a second distance larger than the first distance (e.g., “when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level”), where automated emergency braking (AEB) is implemented when the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian less than the first distance (e.g., “when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level”)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Maeng with the teachings of Mun such that the location information of the pedestrian further includes a distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian because Mun further teaches that the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian is beneficially usable to implement AEB of the vehicle in the child protection zone to prevent an accident between the vehicle and the pedestrian (as discussed by at least ¶ 0058-0067 of Mun).
It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the driving assistance device of Maeng with the teachings of Mun, if even necessary, to further include determining a possibility of collision based on the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and a driving speed of the vehicle; controlling the vehicle based on the possibility of the collision, comprising controlling the display device to display a collision risk warning when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than a first risk level and less than a second risk level, and controlling to perform emergency braking when the possibility of the collision is equal to or higher than the second risk level, because Mun further teaches that the distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian and the driving speed of the vehicle are beneficially usable to determine a possibility of collision between the vehicle and the pedestrian and to implement the AEB of the vehicle in the child protection zone to prevent the collision between the vehicle and the pedestrian (as discussed by at least ¶ 0058-0067 of Mun), including by implementing the AEB of the vehicle when a distance-based risk level is relatively high, or by instead displaying a warning, via a HUD, when the distance-based risk level is relatively low, to prevent the collision between the vehicle and the pedestrian (as discussed by at least ¶ 0058-0067 of Mun).
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeng in view of Mun, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0251059 to Tamagawa (hereinafter: “Tamagawa”).
With respect to claim 3, Maeng modified supra teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 2; however, Maeng appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the processor is configured to: horizontally flip an image acquired from the image data received from the surveillance camera, generate the location information of the pedestrian indicating that the pedestrian is located at the left of the vehicle when the pedestrian is located at left in the horizontally flipped image, and generate the location information of the pedestrian indicating that the pedestrian is located at the right of the vehicle when the pedestrian is located at right in the horizontally flipped image; and confirm the location information of the pedestrian when a direction in which the surveillance camera faces matches the driving direction of the vehicle.
Tamagawa teaches an analogous driving assistance device including a processor is configured to: horizontally flip an image acquired from image data received from a surveillance camera, generate location information of a pedestrian indicating that the pedestrian is located at the left of the vehicle when the pedestrian is located at left in the horizontally flipped image, and generate the location information of the pedestrian indicating that the pedestrian is located at the right of the vehicle when the pedestrian is located at right in the horizontally flipped image; and confirm the location information of the pedestrian when a direction in which the surveillance camera faces matches a driving direction of the vehicle (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0067-0085).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the driving assistance device of Maeng with the teachings of Tamagawa, if even necessary, such that the processor is configured to: horizontally flip an image acquired from the image data received from the surveillance camera, generate the location information of the pedestrian indicating that the pedestrian is located at the left of the vehicle when the pedestrian is located at left in the horizontally flipped image, and generate the location information of the pedestrian indicating that the pedestrian is located at the right of the vehicle when the pedestrian is located at right in the horizontally flipped image; and confirm the location information of the pedestrian when a direction in which the surveillance camera faces matches the driving direction of the vehicle, to beneficially enable the image data to be displayed to a remote operator in a manner that enables the remote operator to immediately grasp a traffic situation while instantaneously grasping a traveling direction.
With respect to claim 4, Maeng modified supra teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to horizontally flip the location information of the pedestrian when a direction in which the surveillance camera faces is opposite to the driving direction of the vehicle, and control the display device to display the horizontally flipped location information of the pedestrian (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 3).
With respect to claim 15, Maeng modified supra teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein the generating of the location information of the pedestrian whether the pedestrian is located at the left or right of the vehicle comprises horizontally flipping an image acquired from the image data received from the surveillance camera, generate the location information of the pedestrian indicating that the pedestrian is located at the left of the vehicle when the pedestrian is located at left in the horizontally flipped image, generate the location information of the pedestrian indicating that the pedestrian is located at the right of the vehicle when the pedestrian is located at right in the horizontally flipped image, and confirming the location information of the pedestrian when a direction in which the surveillance camera faces matches the driving direction of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 3).
With respect to claim 16, Maeng modified supra teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the generating of the location information of the pedestrian indicating whether the pedestrian is located at the left or right of the vehicle comprises horizontally flipping the location information of the pedestrian when the direction in which the surveillance camera faces is opposite to the driving direction of the vehicle, and controlling a display device to display the horizontally flipped location information of the pedestrian (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 3).
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over the Prior Art
As discussed in detail above, claim 20 has been amended by Applicant to include substantial “new matter,” such that the claims fails to comply with the written description requirement, and, as best understood by the examiner, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach, or render obvious, claim 20 specifically due to the improper inclusion of the substantial “new matter” of claim 20, as amended 04/16/2026.
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 JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights