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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 04/22/2026. Claims 1-5 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. Claim 6 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 04/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blume have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blume and Ogino US 2021/0263519 A1 as detailed below.
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims “control an operating strength of a blind spot intersection driving assistance function of the vehicle”. The specification recites the same statement presented in the claim without giving an details on what is being controlled or what the strength means or how to perform said function. Paragraph 0070 recites increasing the deceleration but the scope of the claim covers more than what is recited in the specification.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-6 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.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims “control an operating strength of a blind spot intersection driving assistance function of the vehicle”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Does the operation strength mean operating at a higher frequency, does it mean increasing the detection range, does it mean operating a plurality of systems instead of only one, or does it mean increasing or decreasing speed, velocity, acceleration, deceleration, etc. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as decelerating the vehicle as being the only example given in the specification Paragraph 0070.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume et al US 2023/0137142 A1 (hence Blume) in view of Ogino US 2021/0263519 A1 (hence Ogino).
In re claim 1, Blume discloses a method for identifying potential hazard zones in road traffic by vehicles connected to a central computer unit (Abstract) and teaches the following:
A traffic risk estimation system (Fig.1) comprising:
a vehicle (Fig.1, #1 and Paragraph 0032 “a fleet of vehicles F, so for example vehicles 1”)
a server (Fig.1, #2, and Paragraph 0034 “a central computer unit 2”) comprising:
a data generation unit that generates aggregated data regarding a predetermined phenomenon from vehicle data (Paragraph 0038 “analysis A” and “historical accidents”) acquired in a target area (Paragraph 0004 “a digital map”, and “road”) including a plurality of unit areas (Paragraph 0004 “hazard zones” and Paragraph 0025 “potential hazard zones occur in public road traffic”);
and a risk determination unit that determines a traffic risk for each of the plurality of unit areas based on the aggregated data (Paragraph 0040 “In the central computer unit 2, a definition and a mapping M of hotspots first occurs if there are a large number of similar incidents E, with the contextual information K being taken into account via location and time during the analysis A of the hotspots” and Paragraph 0043 “hazard zones are therefore recognized”),
wherein the server is configured to: generate a hazard map indicating the traffic risk for each of the plurality of unit area (Paragraph 0036 “hotspots are generated according to the prior art” and Paragraph 0040 “a definition and a mapping M of hotspots first occurs if there are a large number of similar incidents E”); and
transmit the hazard map to the vehicle (Paragraph 0047 “ the vehicle user of the relevant vehicle 1 is informed about the hotspot that presents a potential source of danger, so that the vehicle user can adapt their driving behavior accordingly”)
However, Blume discloses that the vehicle user of the relevant vehicle 1 is informed about the hotspot that presents a potential source of danger (Paragraph 0047), but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the vehicle is configured to control an operating strength of a blind spot intersection driving assistance function of the vehicle based on the hazard map
Nevertheless, Ogino discloses a vehicle driving assist system that assists driving of a vehicle through an intersection (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the vehicle is configured to control an operating strength of a blind spot intersection driving assistance function of the vehicle based on the hazard map (Paragraph 0085 “the vehicle driving assist system according to the example embodiment may execute control of causing the own vehicle M to decelerate or change the lateral position shift amount of its course in passing through the intersection”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Blume reference to include the vehicle driving assist system, as taught by Ogino, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine, before reaching the intersection, whether the intersecting road is a blind spot depending on presence or absence of a view-blocking object, on the basis of the recognized information on the traveling road, and changes, if the intersecting road is determined as being a blind spot, a deceleration or a lateral position shift amount of a course of the own vehicle in a direction away from the intersecting road when the own vehicle passes through the intersection (Ogino, Abstract).
In re claim 6, Ogino teaches the following:
wherein the predetermined phenomenon comprises a prior activation of an automated driving assistance function (Paragraph 0034 “The autonomous traveling sensor 14 may include a vehicle speed sensor, a yaw rate sensor, and a longitudinal acceleration sensor, for example”, motivation to combine has been provided above)
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 RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights