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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Park”) (US 2017/0225614 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a driver supporting device and warning timing control method, comprising: an obstacle detection device which includes a radar sensor (101), an image sensor (102), and a speed sensor (103) for detecting a warning target such as a preceding vehicle (see Fig. 2; paragraphs 0037, and 0038); a following vehicle detecting unit (105) (see paragraphs 0037, and 0044) that detects the existence or non-existence of a following vehicle; a notification device that notifies the driver there is a risk that the own vehicle will collide with the warning target (see paragraphs 0039, 0048, and 0049); when the following vehicle is detected (see at least paragraphs 0083, and 0085), the warning time control unit (113) sets an earlier warning timing for following vehicle as a timing at which to output of warning for the following vehicle (see paragraphs 0086, and 0093); when there is no following vehicle, the warning control unit advances to step ST9 in which the warning timing control unit (113) determines whether or not there is a passenger.
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches that the warning data outputting unit (114) outputs both data for indicating a warning for the driver’s vehicle and data for indicating warning for a following vehicle (see paragraph 0049).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park (US 2017/0225614 A1) and in view of Zhou (US 2019/0366918 A1).
Park is not teaching or even suggesting the features of “the display device is a mirror device for rear confirmation that is configured to be able to inform the driver of information.”
Zhou discloses a vehicle system/meth, comprising: a digital mirror device that is configured to display an indicator informing the driver a following vehicle is detected (see abstract; paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Park’s driver supporting device with the teachings as taught by Zhou to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving driver’s rearward visibility.
Claims 4 and 5 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park (US 2017/0225614 A1) and in view of Newman (US 9,701,307 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Park is not disclosing or even suggesting the features of “wherein the own vehicle is equipped with a collision prevention device that performs collision prevention control to reduce the risk of the collision with the obstacle by automatic braking when the it is determined that there is the risk of the own vehicle colliding with the obstacle detected by the obstacle detection device; and the collision prevention device is configured to start the automatic braking earlier when the information device is informing that the following vehicle is approaching the own vehicle as compared to when the information device is not informing that the following vehicle is approaching the own vehicle.”
Newman discloses a vehicular system/method for avoiding collision between a subject vehicle and a second vehicle which is a leading vehicle and a following vehicle. In Park, the subject vehicle (202) includes a collision mitigation system detects that the leading vehicle (201) has stopped, and also that following vehicle (203) is approaching; determining that a collision is imminent, determining that the collision is avoidable with a series of actions which include brake application but not too hard (see Fig. 2, at time t=0; column 34, line 58 through column 35, line 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Park reference with the teachings as taught by Newman to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of issuing an earlier warning to the driver and automatically engaging the vehicle brake system to prevent a collision.
Regarding claim 5, Newman discloses that the brake lights or emergency flashers are turned on as soon as the following vehicle is approaching too fast and a collision is imminent (see column 28, lines 31-47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment and arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants amend the claims to include the features of “a processor programmed to…advance a timing of notifying the driver of the risk of the collision in response to the determination that the following vehicle is approaching the own vehicle.” The applicants argue that Park does not discloses advancing of the collision warning timing “in response to the determination that the following vehicle is approaching the own vehicle.” As discussed herein above, the following vehicle detecting unit (105) detects the existence or non-existence of a following vehicle using radar, images and speed sensors. The warning timing control unit (113) determines if the following vehicle is approaching, assessing the risk of a collision, and adjusts the timing to warn the driver earlier. Therefore, the system disclosed by Park is capable to warn the driver when a following vehicle is detected and advances the timing of that notification if it determines the following vehicle is approaching.
For at least the reasons set forth herein, claims 1-5 remain being rejected under the cited prior art of record.
Conclusions
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights