DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/752,821 is responsive to communications filed 5 June 2026, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 23 March 2026.
Claims 1–13 are pending.
In the previous Office action, claims 1–6, 9, 10, and 12 were objected to for various grammar and formatting informalities. Claims 10 and 11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for having an ambiguous dependency on claim 1. Claims 1–11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by W. Song, Y. Yang, M. Fu, F. Qiu, & M. Wang, “Real-Time Obstacles Detection and Status Classification for Collision Warning in a Vehicle Safety System”, 19 IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 758–773 (March 2018) (“Song”). Claims 12 and 13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Song in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0118550 A1 (“Yoon”).
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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been considered. All claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s intent to claim 10 as dependent on claim 1 is acknowledged. However, the claim is still ambiguous as when infringement actually occurs. Claim 10 as amended recites a processor “configured to receive the input image and execute instructions to cause the monitoring method . . . to be performed”. It is unclear whether infringement of claim 10 only requires making, selling, or providing a system having a processing module “configured to” execute the instructions, that is, a system suitable for or able to perform the claim 1 method, or whether infringement of claim 10 actually requires executing the instructions to perform the claim 1 method.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 10–16, filed 5 June 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive, except to the extent that Applicant alleges the prior art rejections were improper for failing to consider limitations not present in the claims as previously filed. The rejections of claims 1–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and the rejections of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn. Specifically, although the claim language remains convoluted (and possibly machine-translated), with non-standard use of not only “intersection” but now also “route” in the context of driving made apparent (see § 112(b) rejections infra; 23 March 2026 Non-Final Rejection at n. 3), it is clear that Applicant intends to claim the material of claims 6–8, wherein an obstacle O is determined to invade the safe area SA if the modified area MA extending out laterally from a so-called “route” apparently including the inner periphery of an image with respect to a current vehicle, or as claimed, “a driving target”1, to the actual contour or silhouette of the obstacle. This specific configuration as opposed to a more common rectangular hitbox surrounding the obstacle, analogous to obstacle OA, is considered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
With respect to claims 1, 6, and 7, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “route” in claims 1, 6, and 7 is used by the claim to mean an unspecified area on a side-view or peripheral camera to a vehicle, most likely the area of an image closest to the vehicle (see Figs. 6–8, ¶¶ 0048–50), while the accepted meaning is “A road, course, or way for travel from one place to another”.2 The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
With respect to claim 10, as mentioned above, the phrasing that the processing module being “configured to receive [an] input image and execute instructions” is not clear whether the module is itself only configured to execute instructions such that infringement is complete merely by making, selling, or the like of such a processing module that is able to execute the instructions, or whether executing the instructions is intended to be an active step such that infringement requires actually executing the instructions. In other words, it is unclear whether “configured to” refers both to receiving an image and executing instructions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2–5, 8, 9, and 11–13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as mentioned above, the attempted claims of the particular modified area and its relation to the safe area SA as shown in figures 6–8 are considered allowable over the prior art and would be proper if amended to make apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art what the “route” is supposed to be, since it is does not appear to be the intended path or trajectory of the vehicle carrying the processing module.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0311659 A1 (closest prior art; Fig. 2 shows a bright silhouette of an object outside the vehicle displayed as an enhanced warning image).
US 2015/0002642 A1
US 2018/0105101 A1
US 2019/0184900 A1
US 2024/0294115 A1 (Figs. 68–70 show vehicle 1101 in range as an outline, but it is not clear how the vehicle is actually considered or whether this is just a simplified stylistic choice of the illustrator; Fig. 49 shows a more common hitbox).
US 2023/0415652 A1 (Figs. 22–24 identical to Figs. 68–70 in the ‘115 publication)
US 2025/0121773 A1
The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
KR 20160136757 A
KR 20130094997 A
US 2013/0057688 A1
CN 112149460 A
KR 20140006462 A
JP 2016-184251 A
TW 201525419 A
CN 117292359 A
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P. § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
1 More standard use of “target” in English would consider the target to be the obstacle vehicle, not the host or ego vehicle containing the safety system itself.
2 Route, American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Ed. (2022).
Prosecution Insights