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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a determiner determining”, “a warning time corrector setting…”, “a signal generator generating…” in claim 1; “the determiner determines…” in claim 3; “the determiner determines…” in claim 4; “the determiner determines…” in claim 6; “the warning time corrector determines…”; “the warning time corrector determines…” in claim 7; “the warning time corrector determines…” in claim 8; “the warning time corrector determines…” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 limitations “a determiner determining”, “a warning time corrector setting…”, “a signal generator generating…” in claim 1; “the determiner determines…” in claim 3; “the determiner determines…” in claim 4; “the determiner determines…” in claim 6; “the warning time corrector determines…”; “the warning time corrector determines…” in claim 7; “the warning time corrector determines…” in claim 8; “the warning time corrector determines…” in claim 9 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There determiner, corrector, and generator are part of a warning control device (see e.g. FIG. 3), however a device is not a specific structure but a non-structural generic placeholder (see e.g. MPEP 2181, section I, part A) and it is not clearly elaborated whether the disclosed device (see e.g. paragraphs [57], [65], [71-73] and so forth) is a structural or physical circuitry as required. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims 2, 5, and 10 are rejected for inheriting the subject matter at issue.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (Lee; US 2020/0001839) in view of Kim et al. (Kim; US 2020/0391591).
As per claim 1, Lee teaches a vehicle warning control device, comprising:
a receiver receiving sensing information through an in-vehicle sensor (receiving or acquiring data by a domain control unit 7 from an in-vehicle sensor module, see e.g. 2A, 2A and para. [0043], wherein the control unit has one or more receivers for acquiring the data);
a determiner determining a collision risk degree of the vehicle ([using one or more determiners of processors in controller 1, FIG. 1 and para. [0043]] degree of collision risk is determined; see e.g. para. [0081] and [201]) and a driver’s intent [steering angle value] based on the sensing information ([using one or more determiners of processors in controller 1, FIG. 1 and para. [0043]] driver’s intervention or intent is determined, see e.g. para. [231-232], wherein the intervention is determined based on output of one or more in-vehicle sensors, i.e. steering torque sensor or steering angle sensor; see e.g. para. [0041]);
[adjusting braking time or steering time point, see e.g. para. [0133-134]]
a signal generator generating a vehicle movement control torque signal based on the warning control time (a signal generator to generate a signal to control vehicle movement based on an adjusted braking time point or steering time point; see e.g. FIG. 13 and para. [0133-134]).
Lee does not explicitly teach generating at least one of a warning signal (in addition to the movement control signal) and a warning time corrector setting a warning control time by applying a correction value determined based on a result of determining the collision risk degree and the driver's intent.
Kim, however, teaches generating at least one of a warning signal (warning device 700 may notify the driver of a collision risk by stimulating at least one of the driver's sight, hearing, and touch, wherein the warning may be adjusted or provided in advance; see e.g. para. [0075-76] and [0112]); a warning time corrector setting a warning control time by applying a correction value determined based on a result of determining the collision risk degree and the driver's intent (Kim teaches generating a warning signal or an advance warning signal, see e.g. para. [0007] and [0066], wherein advance warning would be corrective or earlier warning, wherein this warning can be based on a driver’s intent and risk degree as suggested by Lee and discussed earlier).
Lee and Kim are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of collision avoidance in a timely manner as suggested by Kim (see e.g. para. [0006]).
As per claim 7, the vehicle warning control device of claim 1 as taught by Lee and Kim, wherein if it is determined that the collision risk degree is less than a predetermined first threshold and that the driver has an intent to depart from a driving lane according to a result of determining the driver's intent, the warning time corrector determines the correction value so that the warning control time is delayed as compared with a reference warning time (Lee teaches moving up braking time point [or maintaining it] or steering time point when time to collision is more than a threshold [or increased degree of risk] and whether or not driver intervenes [see e.g. FIGS. 7-10] , see e.g. para. [0104], [0243-244] of Lee, wherein the time can be configured for the disclosed warning of Kim as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1. An opposite of the disclosed scenario can be envisioned where the notification time or braking/steering time point is delayed when degree of risk is less than a threshold value).
As per claim 8, the vehicle warning control device of claim 7 as taught by Lee and Kim, wherein the warning time corrector determines the correction value so that the warning control time is earlier than the reference warning time when the collision risk degree is larger than or equal to a preset second threshold (Lee teaches moving up braking time point [or maintaining it] or steering time point when time to collision is more than a threshold [or increased degree of risk] and whether or not driver intervenes [see e.g. FIGS. 7-10] , see e.g. para. [0104], [0243-244] of Lee, wherein the time can be configured for the disclosed warning of Kim as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1).
As per claim 9, the vehicle warning control device of claim 8 as taught by Lee and Kim, wherein when it is determined that the collision risk degree is larger than or equal to the first threshold and less than the second threshold, or when it is determined that the collision risk degree is less than the first threshold but the driver has no intent to depart from the driving lane, the warning time corrector determines that the correction value is 0 and determines that the warning control time is the reference warning time (maintaining the steering time point when time to collision is more than a threshold [or increased degree of risk] and whether or not driver intervenes [see e.g. FIGS. 7-10] , see e.g. para. [0104], [0243-244] of Lee. However, it is known in the art that plurality of thresholds can be programmed [see e.g. para. 0106 and 0250] where a first threshold may correspond to a warning stage and the second threshold may correspond to an alarm or alert stage, wherein it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to maintain the braking/steering time point can be maintained between a first and a second threshold).
As per claim 10, the vehicle warning control device of claim 1 as taught by Lee and Kim, wherein the warning control time is set by applying the correction value with respect to half of a distance obtained by excluding a width of the vehicle from a width of a driving lane in which the vehicle drives (Lee teaches that the predetermined distance can be dynamically adjusted or can be a fixed value of 5m, see e.g. para. [0250] and the control time is set accordingly, wherein it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to program it to any desired value or function including but not limited to half of a distance obtained by excluding a width of the vehicle from a width of a driving lane in which the vehicle drives).
As per claim 11, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 1.
As per claim 17, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 7.
As per claim 18, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 8.
As per claim 19, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 9.
As per claim 20, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 10.
Claims 2-6 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim and further in view of Kimura (Kimura; US 2018/0141570).
As per claim 2, the vehicle warning control device of claim 1 Lee and Kim, wherein the sensing information includes lane information (lane information, i.e. determine if an object is present is a driving lane, see e.g. claim 5 of Kim), surrounding vehicle recognition information (recognizing speed or other aspects of surrounding vehicles, see e.g. para. [0069] of Lee), and steering torque information (steering torque information; see e.g. para. [0041]). Lee and Kim do not teach sensing information includes steering wheel grip information.
Kimura, however, teaches sensing information includes steering wheel grip information (determine steering holding; see e.g. para. [0115]).
Lee, Kim and Kimura are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing accidents caused by a sleepy or distracted driver.
As per claim 3, the vehicle warning control device of claim 2 as taught by Lee, Kim and Kimura, wherein the determiner determines the driver's intent according to whether the steering torque information within a predetermined range is generated in a moving direction of the vehicle (predetermined torque determination [in a direction of movement] as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1; see e.g. para. [0041] of Lee) if it is determined that the driver grips a steering wheel based on the steering wheel grip information (a driver or operator holding the steering wheel as suggested Kimura and discussed earlier, wherein the torque determination can be determined when the user or operator holds the steering wheel).
As per claim 4, the vehicle warning control device of claim 2 as taught by Lee, Kim and Kimura, , and wherein the determiner determines the driver's intent based on whether the steering torque information within a predetermined range is generated in a moving direction of the vehicle, if it is determined that the driver grips the steering wheel based on the steering wheel grip information (as discussed earlier, driver’s or holding of steering wheel information [see e.g. para. 0075-76 and 0112 of Kim] and the driver’s intent based on generating torque more than a threshold amount [in direction of travel] is output; see e.g. para. [0041] of Lee). Furthermore, Kim teaches the sensing information further includes driver gaze information (identifying driver’s gaze information; see e.g. para. [0007] and [0015] of Kim) and whether the driver gaze information moves to a designated position set in association with the moving direction of the vehicle (driver’s gaze information can be a region, see e.g. para. [0017] of Kim, and whether the gaze moves to a position wherein object is location, see e.g. para. [0017-19], wherein the gaze region and the object location change with moving direction of the vehicle).
As per claim 5, the vehicle warning control device of claim 4 as taught by Lee, Kim and Kimura, wherein the designated position is a point where a side mirror of the vehicle is positioned (the gaze region [a set of points] is an area including room mirror, a passenger side window and a right-side mirror; see e.g. para. [0021]), and is dynamically set according to a height of the driver's gaze (as discussed earlier, the region is dynamically changed with vehicle movement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the designated point and/or gaze region when driver or operator changes his point of view in horizontal or vertical direction).
As per claim 6, the vehicle warning control device of claim 2 as taught by Lee, Kim and Kimura, wherein the determiner determines the collision risk degree according to a logic for calculating the collision risk degree between the vehicle and a target vehicle based on the surrounding vehicle recognition information (surrounding vehicle information for collision risk [or degree of risk] determining, i.e. time to collision, distance to collision etc.; see e.g. para. [0102-103] of Lee).
As per claim 12, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 2.
As per claim 13, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 3.
As per claim 14, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 4.
As per claim 15, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 5.
As per claim 16, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688