DETAIED 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 is a Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on February 16th, 2026 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11-13, 16-17, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 2 and 9-10 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The previous claim interpretation of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(f) has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments.
The previous contingent limitations of claims 1, 3-6, 11-12, and 19-20 have been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments.
The applicant states (Amend. 9-11) that independent claim 1 does not constitute an abstract idea and that the claims provide a technological advantage in a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended claim 1 at most discusses an abstract idea to determine if a vehicle is turning and adjusting range of detection. Even if, for the sake of the argument, the determination is a new idea, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A narrow claim directed to an abstract idea, however, is not necessarily patent-eligible.”). Furthermore, when a claim directed to an abstract idea contains no restriction on how an asserted improvement is accomplished and the asserted improvement is not described in the claim, then the claim does not become patent eligible. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, the applicants assert arguments for a more general improvement to an existing technological process. However, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because applicant’s claim 1 fails to recite (1) any limitations detailing “low demand services”, how to efficiently “uninstall and then reinstall a service” or how management of services are allowed to be more efficient, and (2) any limitations detailing how “allowing the service requester to receive a desired quality of service” or how “not experiencing a delay or difference in quality of service even if the requested service had its processing priority lowered and needed to be reconfigured” is achieved. When a claim directed to an abstract idea contains no restriction on how an asserted improvement is accomplished and the asserted improvement is not described in the claim, then the claim does not become patent eligible. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (“Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification”).
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claims 1, and 19-20, the claims recite the abstract idea of determining and providing assistance for a vehicle during turns and traveling through hazardous points, and mentally determine “provide traveling assistance when the travelling hazardous point is determined to be included within the range of detection; when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection”, where these claims fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations of the mind. For example, the claim limitation encompasses mentally determining and providing assistance for a vehicle during turns and traveling through hazardous points based off of the information provided by the car’s sensors while traveling, or alternatively, mentally determining and providing assistance for a vehicle during turns and traveling through hazardous points based on observations by a human.
For example, a human could mentally and with the aid of pen and paper determine and providing assistance for a vehicle during turns and traveling through hazardous points.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements of: a communication apparatus, a processor, are merely generic components used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
In addition, the limitation “a communication apparatus which communicated with an outside of a vehicle and receives information indicating a traveling hazardous point which is transmitted from the outside of the vehicle, the traveling hazardous point indicating a point which is hazardous to the vehicle … determine whether the vehicle is turning” constitutes insignificant presolution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff' d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a communication apparatus and a processor does not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims 3-8 and 11-18 merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant claimed invention, when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi (US 6281786 B1) (“Adachi”) in view of Keiichi (JP 2019028486 A) (“Keiichi”) (Translation Attached) in view of Shahriari (US 20230365124 A1) (“Shahriari”).
With respect to claim 1, Adachi teaches an assistance apparatus comprising:
a communication apparatus which communicates with an outside of a vehicle and receives information indicating a travelling hazardous point1 which is transmitted from the outside of the vehicle, the traveling hazardous point indicating a point which is hazardous to the vehicle; and at least one processor configured to (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 10-25 “The EM sensors 21 and 22 are mounted at the front center and rear center of the vehicle 1, respectively for monitoring forward and rearward fields of view from the vehicle 1. Each of EM sensors 21 and 22 transmits an electromagnetic wave in a millimeter wave band, for example, 24 GHz and 76-77 GHz as an FM signal and receives a reflected FM signal from an obstacle, if any, at a remote distance from the vehicle to detect and located the obstacle in a known manner. Each of the front and rear EM sensors gives a long detection range L1 and L2 with a relatively narrow directivity for detection of a remote obstacle ahead and behind the vehicle. The position of the obstacle is determined at the same detection unit 30 based upon a frequency shifting between the transmitted and reflected FM signals, as is known in a radar detection system relying on an FWCW (frequency modulation continuous wave) process. It is equally possible to use the electromagnetic wave in a micrometer wave band.”);
calculate a distance and an azimuth from the vehicle to the travelling hazardous point based on the travelling hazardous point and a current location of the vehicle (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 4 lines 32-57 “When the monitored vehicle speed exceeds 10 km/h, the EM sensors 21 and 22 are activated for detection of the remote obstacles, while all the US sensors are deactivated. In this condition, the detection unit 30 operates to elongate an effective detection distance range L1 as the vehicle speeds increase. For example, when the vehicle speed >10 km/h and <20 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 2 m from the vehicle. When the vehicle speed >=20 km/h and <50 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 10 m. When the vehicle speed >=50 km/h and <100 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 50 m. As the vehicle speed exceeds 100 km/h, the detection range L1 is fixed to within 100 m. Then, the vehicle direction is checked to shift directivity of the EM sensors 21 and 22 in match with an intended direction of the vehicle, either by varying the frequency of the FM signal or varying the angular orientation of the EM sensors 21 and 22. The detection of the remote obstacles by thus adjusted EM sensors is notified by the buzzer 41 and the display 42. Since the detection distance range L1 is shortened as the vehicle speed decrease, it is possible to exclude the detection of any far remote obstacle which is not dangerous to the vehicle and would otherwise cause over-sensitive warning, thereby assuring consistent and effective warning to the user sufficient for safe driving.” | Col. 5 lines 13-19 “Further, the position of the remote obstacle detected by EM sensors may be informed by displaying its distance and direction from the vehicle in an additional LCD or by a suitable voice message, such as “12 m ahead, direction one” which means the obstacle is located ahead at a distance of 12 in a direction of one o'clock on a clock indication with zero or twelve o'clock corresponding to straight forward.”);
detect whether the travelling hazardous point is included within a range of detection set ahead of the vehicle in a running direction based on the distance and the azimuth calculated by the at least one processor (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 3-21 “Due to detection characteristic of the US sensor, each US sensor gives a short detection range S1 to S8 with a relatively wide directivity around the vehicle for detection of a nearby obstacle. The detection and/or position of the obstacle is acknowledged at a detection unit 30 which is realized in an electronic control unit (ECU) 31 with a microprocessor 32, as shown in FIG. 2. The EM sensors 21 and 22 are mounted at the front center and rear center of the vehicle 1, respectively for monitoring forward and rearward fields of view from the vehicle 1. Each of EM sensors 21 and 22 transmits an electromagnetic wave in a millimeter wave band, for example, 24 GHz and 76-77 GHz as an FM signal and receives a reflected FM signal from an obstacle, if any, at a remote distance from the vehicle to detect and located the obstacle in a known manner. Each of the front and rear EM sensors gives a long detection range L1 and L2 with a relatively narrow directivity for detection of a remote obstacle ahead and behind the vehicle.”);
provide travelling assistance when the travelling hazardous point is determined to be included within the range of detection (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 37-40 “A buzzer 41 and a display 42 are connected to the microprocessor 32 to constitute a warning unit for providing warnings to a driver based upon the detection of the nearby and remote obstacles.” | Col. 3 lines 53-57 “The display 42 comprises a plurality of LEDs 43 which are arranged around a vehicle figure provided in a dashboard of the vehicle 1 to represent actual positions, i.e., front center, front left, front right, rear center, rear left, and rear right of the vehicle” | Col. 4 lines 2-7 “Instead of or in addition to the buzzer 41 and display 42, a voice Speaker may be incorporated to inform the driver of the detection of the nearby and/or remote obstacle by Suitable voice warning messages, for example, “Caution!, nearby obstacle detected in front center” and the like”).
Adachi fails to explicitly disclose determine whether the vehicle is turning; and when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection.
Keiichi teaches determine whether the vehicle is turning; and when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle (See at least Keiichi Paragraphs 6-7 “It is an object of the present invention to provide a navigation apparatus which turns a detected angular range of a distance sensor in a direction in which the host vehicle will proceed even when a large handle operation is performed, such as a right or left turn at an intersection in an urban area traveling, An obstacle detection device capable of detecting an obstacle such as another vehicle or a pedestrian, and an obstacle detection method. An obstacle detection device according to the present invention for achieving the above object comprises an obstacle detection device having a distance sensor for measuring a distance to a front object, wherein the distance sensor is configured to be able to turn, and When the turning control device that controls the turning angle of the distance sensor satisfies the right / left turning condition preset by the host vehicle information obtained when the host vehicle is running, regardless of the steering angle and the actual steering angle , And performs a control of turning the distance sensor by a predetermined set turning angle in a turning direction corresponding to the filled right / left turning condition”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi to include determine whether the vehicle is turning; and when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle, as taught by Keiichi as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal sensing of surroundings during various vehicle movements (Keiichi Paragraph 1 “The present invention relates to an obstacle detection device and an obstacle detection method”).
Adachi in view of Keiichi fail to explicitly disclose that when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection.
Shahriari teaches that when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection (See at least Shahriari FIG. 4 and Paragraphs 62-63 “In step 410, the turn predicting data 224 is received. In step 420, a prediction is made as to whether an upcoming turn is probable based on the turn predicting data 224. The prediction can be based on a probabilistic assessment and fusion of turn predicting data 224 from multiple sources. For example, the turn may be predicted based on any combination of the following data elements: application of the brake and/or throttle position from the throttle/brake sensor 222; driver's head and/or eye movement from the DMS 202; the turn indictor being on or off as detected by the turn signal sensor 220; a steering wheel angle from the SAS 208; rate of change of yaw from the IMU 212; deceleration of the vehicle 10, which can be derived from data from the IMU 212, the WSS 210 or the GPS; no lane line detected or intermittent lane line detection for a set time on a side of the vehicle 10 as detected by the perception system 74. The prediction of step 420 may also provide a direction of the predicted turn (e.g. whether turning into a left or right intersection). This prediction can be part of the above described probabilistic assessment or a separate prediction step can be performed to determine directionality of the vehicle turn. Exemplary data elements for determining turn direction can include any one or more of the following: steering yaw angle from the SAS 208; vehicle heading, which can be derived from the GPS; vehicle location indicating alignment of the vehicle for a turn in a left or right direction, which can be derived from map data and vehicle localization with respect to the map; assessment of optical images from the perception system 74 indicating preparation for a left or right turn; and route information provided by a navigation system. In step 430, a size or form of the detection zone is determined. When an upcoming turn is predicted in step 420, the detection zone is expanded from the normal detection zone 102 to the extended detection zone 104. The detection zone is extended on a side of the vehicle 10 that corresponds to the turn direction determined in step 430. Thus, the detection zone may be extended on one side and normal sized on the other side of the vehicle 10. As such, a lop-sided detection zone may be defined.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi in view of Keiichi to include that when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection, as taught by Shahriari as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate vehicle sensing when driving maneuvers change (Shahriari Paragraph 3 “Accordingly, it is desirable to provide systems and methods that reduce nuisance alerts of a collision risk and which appropriately alerts a driver of a collision risk.”).
With respect to claim 16, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari teach that the travelling hazardous point is detected within the range of detection based on the distance and the azimuth from the vehicle to the travelling hazardous point calculated by the at least one processor (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 3-21 “Due to detection characteristic of the US sensor, each US sensor gives a short detection range S1 to S8 with a relatively wide directivity around the vehicle for detection of a nearby obstacle. The detection and/or position of the obstacle is acknowledged at a detection unit 30 which is realized in an electronic control unit (ECU) 31 with a microprocessor 32, as shown in FIG. 2. The EM sensors 21 and 22 are mounted at the front center and rear center of the vehicle 1, respectively for monitoring forward and rearward fields of view from the vehicle 1. Each of EM sensors 21 and 22 transmits an electromagnetic wave in a millimeter wave band, for example, 24 GHz and 76-77 GHz as an FM signal and receives a reflected FM signal from an obstacle, if any, at a remote distance from the vehicle to detect and located the obstacle in a known manner. Each of the front and rear EM sensors gives a long detection range L1 and L2 with a relatively narrow directivity for detection of a remote obstacle ahead and behind the vehicle.” | Col. 4 lines 32-57 “When the monitored vehicle speed exceeds 10 km/h, the EM sensors 21 and 22 are activated for detection of the remote obstacles, while all the US sensors are deactivated. In this condition, the detection unit 30 operates to elongate an effective detection distance range L1 as the vehicle speeds increase. For example, when the vehicle speed >10 km/h and <20 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 2 m from the vehicle. When the vehicle speed >=20 km/h and <50 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 10 m. When the vehicle speed >=50 km/h and <100 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 50 m. As the vehicle speed exceeds 100 km/h, the detection range L1 is fixed to within 100 m. Then, the vehicle direction is checked to shift directivity of the EM sensors 21 and 22 in match with an intended direction of the vehicle, either by varying the frequency of the FM signal or varying the angular orientation of the EM sensors 21 and 22. The detection of the remote obstacles by thus adjusted EM sensors is notified by the buzzer 41 and the display 42. Since the detection distance range L1 is shortened as the vehicle speed decrease, it is possible to exclude the detection of any far remote obstacle which is not dangerous to the vehicle and would otherwise cause over-sensitive warning, thereby assuring consistent and effective warning to the user sufficient for safe driving”).
With respect to claim 18, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari teaches a vehicle comprising the assistance apparatus according to claim 1 (See at least Adachi FIG. 1).
With respect to claim 19, Adachi teaches an assistance method comprising:
Receiving, by a communication apparatus which communicates with an outside of a vehicle, information indicating a travelling hazardous point2 which is transmitted from the outside of the vehicle, the traveling hazardous point indicating appoint which is hazardous to the vehicle (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 10-25 “The EM sensors 21 and 22 are mounted at the front center and rear center of the vehicle 1, respectively for monitoring forward and rearward fields of view from the vehicle 1. Each of EM sensors 21 and 22 transmits an electromagnetic wave in a millimeter wave band, for example, 24 GHz and 76-77 GHz as an FM signal and receives a reflected FM signal from an obstacle, if any, at a remote distance from the vehicle to detect and located the obstacle in a known manner. Each of the front and rear EM sensors gives a long detection range L1 and L2 with a relatively narrow directivity for detection of a remote obstacle ahead and behind the vehicle. The position of the obstacle is determined at the same detection unit 30 based upon a frequency shifting between the transmitted and reflected FM signals, as is known in a radar detection system relying on an FWCW (frequency modulation continuous wave) process. It is equally possible to use the electromagnetic wave in a micrometer wave band.”);
calculating a distance and an azimuth from the vehicle to the travelling hazardous point based on the travelling hazardous point and a current location of the vehicle (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 4 lines 32-57 “When the monitored vehicle speed exceeds 10 km/h, the EM sensors 21 and 22 are activated for detection of the remote obstacles, while all the US sensors are deactivated. In this condition, the detection unit 30 operates to elongate an effective detection distance range L1 as the vehicle speeds increase. For example, when the vehicle speed >10 km/h and <20 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 2 m from the vehicle. When the vehicle speed >=20 km/h and <50 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 10 m. When the vehicle speed >=50 km/h and <100 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 50 m. As the vehicle speed exceeds 100 km/h, the detection range L1 is fixed to within 100 m. Then, the vehicle direction is checked to shift directivity of the EM sensors 21 and 22 in match with an intended direction of the vehicle, either by varying the frequency of the FM signal or varying the angular orientation of the EM sensors 21 and 22. The detection of the remote obstacles by thus adjusted EM sensors is notified by the buzzer 41 and the display 42. Since the detection distance range L1 is shortened as the vehicle speed decrease, it is possible to exclude the detection of any far remote obstacle which is not dangerous to the vehicle and would otherwise cause over-sensitive warning, thereby assuring consistent and effective warning to the user sufficient for safe driving.” | Col. 5 lines 13-19 “Further, the position of the remote obstacle detected by EM sensors may be informed by displaying its distance and direction from the vehicle in an additional LCD or by a suitable voice message, such as “12 m ahead, direction one” which means the obstacle is located ahead at a distance of 12 in a direction of one o'clock on a clock indication with zero or twelve o'clock corresponding to straight forward.”);
detecting whether the travelling hazardous point is included within a range of detection set ahead of the vehicle in a running direction based on the distance and the azimuth calculated in the calculating (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 3-21 “Due to detection characteristic of the US sensor, each US sensor gives a short detection range S1 to S8 with a relatively wide directivity around the vehicle for detection of a nearby obstacle. The detection and/or position of the obstacle is acknowledged at a detection unit 30 which is realized in an electronic control unit (ECU) 31 with a microprocessor 32, as shown in FIG. 2. The EM sensors 21 and 22 are mounted at the front center and rear center of the vehicle 1, respectively for monitoring forward and rearward fields of view from the vehicle 1. Each of EM sensors 21 and 22 transmits an electromagnetic wave in a millimeter wave band, for example, 24 GHz and 76-77 GHz as an FM signal and receives a reflected FM signal from an obstacle, if any, at a remote distance from the vehicle to detect and located the obstacle in a known manner. Each of the front and rear EM sensors gives a long detection range L1 and L2 with a relatively narrow directivity for detection of a remote obstacle ahead and behind the vehicle.”);
providing travelling assistance when the travelling hazardous point is determined to be included within the range of detection (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 37-40 “A buzzer 41 and a display 42 are connected to the microprocessor 32 to constitute a warning unit for providing warnings to a driver based upon the detection of the nearby and remote obstacles.” | Col. 3 lines 53-57 “The display 42 comprises a plurality of LEDs 43 which are arranged around a vehicle figure provided in a dashboard of the vehicle 1 to represent actual positions, i.e., front center, front left, front right, rear center, rear left, and rear right of the vehicle” | Col. 4 lines 2-7 “Instead of or in addition to the buzzer 41 and display 42, a voice Speaker may be incorporated to inform the driver of the detection of the nearby and/or remote obstacle by Suitable voice warning messages, for example, “Caution!, nearby obstacle detected in front center” and the like”).
Adachi fails to explicitly disclose determine whether the vehicle is turning; and when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection.
Keiichi teaches determine whether the vehicle is turning; and when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle (See at least Keiichi Paragraphs 6-7 “It is an object of the present invention to provide a navigation apparatus which turns a detected angular range of a distance sensor in a direction in which the host vehicle will proceed even when a large handle operation is performed, such as a right or left turn at an intersection in an urban area traveling, An obstacle detection device capable of detecting an obstacle such as another vehicle or a pedestrian, and an obstacle detection method. An obstacle detection device according to the present invention for achieving the above object comprises an obstacle detection device having a distance sensor for measuring a distance to a front object, wherein the distance sensor is configured to be able to turn, and When the turning control device that controls the turning angle of the distance sensor satisfies the right / left turning condition preset by the host vehicle information obtained when the host vehicle is running, regardless of the steering angle and the actual steering angle , And performs a control of turning the distance sensor by a predetermined set turning angle in a turning direction corresponding to the filled right / left turning condition”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Adachi to include determine whether the vehicle is turning; and when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle, as taught by Keiichi as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal sensing of surroundings during various vehicle movements (Keiichi Paragraph 1 “The present invention relates to an obstacle detection device and an obstacle detection method”).
Adachi in view of Keiichi fail to explicitly disclose that when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection.
Shahriari teaches that when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection (See at least Shahriari FIG. 4 and Paragraphs 62-63 “In step 410, the turn predicting data 224 is received. In step 420, a prediction is made as to whether an upcoming turn is probable based on the turn predicting data 224. The prediction can be based on a probabilistic assessment and fusion of turn predicting data 224 from multiple sources. For example, the turn may be predicted based on any combination of the following data elements: application of the brake and/or throttle position from the throttle/brake sensor 222; driver's head and/or eye movement from the DMS 202; the turn indictor being on or off as detected by the turn signal sensor 220; a steering wheel angle from the SAS 208; rate of change of yaw from the IMU 212; deceleration of the vehicle 10, which can be derived from data from the IMU 212, the WSS 210 or the GPS; no lane line detected or intermittent lane line detection for a set time on a side of the vehicle 10 as detected by the perception system 74. The prediction of step 420 may also provide a direction of the predicted turn (e.g. whether turning into a left or right intersection). This prediction can be part of the above described probabilistic assessment or a separate prediction step can be performed to determine directionality of the vehicle turn. Exemplary data elements for determining turn direction can include any one or more of the following: steering yaw angle from the SAS 208; vehicle heading, which can be derived from the GPS; vehicle location indicating alignment of the vehicle for a turn in a left or right direction, which can be derived from map data and vehicle localization with respect to the map; assessment of optical images from the perception system 74 indicating preparation for a left or right turn; and route information provided by a navigation system. In step 430, a size or form of the detection zone is determined. When an upcoming turn is predicted in step 420, the detection zone is expanded from the normal detection zone 102 to the extended detection zone 104. The detection zone is extended on a side of the vehicle 10 that corresponds to the turn direction determined in step 430. Thus, the detection zone may be extended on one side and normal sized on the other side of the vehicle 10. As such, a lop-sided detection zone may be defined.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Adachi in view of Keiichi to include that when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection, as taught by Shahriari as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate vehicle sensing when driving maneuvers change (Shahriari Paragraph 3 “Accordingly, it is desirable to provide systems and methods that reduce nuisance alerts of a collision risk and which appropriately alerts a driver of a collision risk.”).
With respect to claim 20, Adachi teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that causes a computer, when executed by the computer, to execute:
receiving by a communication apparatus which communicates with an outside of a vehicle information indicating a travelling hazardous point3 which is transmitted from the outside of the vehicle, the traveling hazardous point indicating a point which is hazardous to the vehicle; and at least one processor configured to (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 10-25 “The EM sensors 21 and 22 are mounted at the front center and rear center of the vehicle 1, respectively for monitoring forward and rearward fields of view from the vehicle 1. Each of EM sensors 21 and 22 transmits an electromagnetic wave in a millimeter wave band, for example, 24 GHz and 76-77 GHz as an FM signal and receives a reflected FM signal from an obstacle, if any, at a remote distance from the vehicle to detect and located the obstacle in a known manner. Each of the front and rear EM sensors gives a long detection range L1 and L2 with a relatively narrow directivity for detection of a remote obstacle ahead and behind the vehicle. The position of the obstacle is determined at the same detection unit 30 based upon a frequency shifting between the transmitted and reflected FM signals, as is known in a radar detection system relying on an FWCW (frequency modulation continuous wave) process. It is equally possible to use the electromagnetic wave in a micrometer wave band.”);
calculate a distance and an azimuth from the vehicle to the travelling hazardous point based on the travelling hazardous point and a current location of the vehicle (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 4 lines 32-57 “When the monitored vehicle speed exceeds 10 km/h, the EM sensors 21 and 22 are activated for detection of the remote obstacles, while all the US sensors are deactivated. In this condition, the detection unit 30 operates to elongate an effective detection distance range L1 as the vehicle speeds increase. For example, when the vehicle speed >10 km/h and <20 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 2 m from the vehicle. When the vehicle speed >=20 km/h and <50 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 10 m. When the vehicle speed >=50 km/h and <100 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 50 m. As the vehicle speed exceeds 100 km/h, the detection range L1 is fixed to within 100 m. Then, the vehicle direction is checked to shift directivity of the EM sensors 21 and 22 in match with an intended direction of the vehicle, either by varying the frequency of the FM signal or varying the angular orientation of the EM sensors 21 and 22. The detection of the remote obstacles by thus adjusted EM sensors is notified by the buzzer 41 and the display 42. Since the detection distance range L1 is shortened as the vehicle speed decrease, it is possible to exclude the detection of any far remote obstacle which is not dangerous to the vehicle and would otherwise cause over-sensitive warning, thereby assuring consistent and effective warning to the user sufficient for safe driving.” | Col. 5 lines 13-19 “Further, the position of the remote obstacle detected by EM sensors may be informed by displaying its distance and direction from the vehicle in an additional LCD or by a suitable voice message, such as “12 m ahead, direction one” which means the obstacle is located ahead at a distance of 12 in a direction of one o'clock on a clock indication with zero or twelve o'clock corresponding to straight forward.”);
detect whether the travelling hazardous point is included within a range of detection set ahead of the vehicle in a running direction based on the distance and the azimuth calculated by the at least one processor (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 3-21 “Due to detection characteristic of the US sensor, each US sensor gives a short detection range S1 to S8 with a relatively wide directivity around the vehicle for detection of a nearby obstacle. The detection and/or position of the obstacle is acknowledged at a detection unit 30 which is realized in an electronic control unit (ECU) 31 with a microprocessor 32, as shown in FIG. 2. The EM sensors 21 and 22 are mounted at the front center and rear center of the vehicle 1, respectively for monitoring forward and rearward fields of view from the vehicle 1. Each of EM sensors 21 and 22 transmits an electromagnetic wave in a millimeter wave band, for example, 24 GHz and 76-77 GHz as an FM signal and receives a reflected FM signal from an obstacle, if any, at a remote distance from the vehicle to detect and located the obstacle in a known manner. Each of the front and rear EM sensors gives a long detection range L1 and L2 with a relatively narrow directivity for detection of a remote obstacle ahead and behind the vehicle.”);
provide travelling assistance when the travelling hazardous point is determined to be included within the range of detection (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 37-40 “A buzzer 41 and a display 42 are connected to the microprocessor 32 to constitute a warning unit for providing warnings to a driver based upon the detection of the nearby and remote obstacles.” | Col. 3 lines 53-57 “The display 42 comprises a plurality of LEDs 43 which are arranged around a vehicle figure provided in a dashboard of the vehicle 1 to represent actual positions, i.e., front center, front left, front right, rear center, rear left, and rear right of the vehicle” | Col. 4 lines 2-7 “Instead of or in addition to the buzzer 41 and display 42, a voice Speaker may be incorporated to inform the driver of the detection of the nearby and/or remote obstacle by Suitable voice warning messages, for example, “Caution!, nearby obstacle detected in front center” and the like”).
Adachi fails to explicitly disclose determine whether the vehicle is turning; and when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection.
Keiichi teaches determine whether the vehicle is turning; and when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle (See at least Keiichi Paragraphs 6-7 “It is an object of the present invention to provide a navigation apparatus which turns a detected angular range of a distance sensor in a direction in which the host vehicle will proceed even when a large handle operation is performed, such as a right or left turn at an intersection in an urban area traveling, An obstacle detection device capable of detecting an obstacle such as another vehicle or a pedestrian, and an obstacle detection method. An obstacle detection device according to the present invention for achieving the above object comprises an obstacle detection device having a distance sensor for measuring a distance to a front object, wherein the distance sensor is configured to be able to turn, and When the turning control device that controls the turning angle of the distance sensor satisfies the right / left turning condition preset by the host vehicle information obtained when the host vehicle is running, regardless of the steering angle and the actual steering angle , And performs a control of turning the distance sensor by a predetermined set turning angle in a turning direction corresponding to the filled right / left turning condition”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi to include determine whether the vehicle is turning; and when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle, as taught by Keiichi as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal sensing of surroundings during various vehicle movements (Keiichi Paragraph 1 “The present invention relates to an obstacle detection device and an obstacle detection method”).
Adachi in view of Keiichi fail to explicitly disclose that when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection.
Shahriari teaches that when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection (See at least Shahriari FIG. 4 and Paragraphs 62-63 “In step 410, the turn predicting data 224 is received. In step 420, a prediction is made as to whether an upcoming turn is probable based on the turn predicting data 224. The prediction can be based on a probabilistic assessment and fusion of turn predicting data 224 from multiple sources. For example, the turn may be predicted based on any combination of the following data elements: application of the brake and/or throttle position from the throttle/brake sensor 222; driver's head and/or eye movement from the DMS 202; the turn indictor being on or off as detected by the turn signal sensor 220; a steering wheel angle from the SAS 208; rate of change of yaw from the IMU 212; deceleration of the vehicle 10, which can be derived from data from the IMU 212, the WSS 210 or the GPS; no lane line detected or intermittent lane line detection for a set time on a side of the vehicle 10 as detected by the perception system 74. The prediction of step 420 may also provide a direction of the predicted turn (e.g. whether turning into a left or right intersection). This prediction can be part of the above described probabilistic assessment or a separate prediction step can be performed to determine directionality of the vehicle turn. Exemplary data elements for determining turn direction can include any one or more of the following: steering yaw angle from the SAS 208; vehicle heading, which can be derived from the GPS; vehicle location indicating alignment of the vehicle for a turn in a left or right direction, which can be derived from map data and vehicle localization with respect to the map; assessment of optical images from the perception system 74 indicating preparation for a left or right turn; and route information provided by a navigation system. In step 430, a size or form of the detection zone is determined. When an upcoming turn is predicted in step 420, the detection zone is expanded from the normal detection zone 102 to the extended detection zone 104. The detection zone is extended on a side of the vehicle 10 that corresponds to the turn direction determined in step 430. Thus, the detection zone may be extended on one side and normal sized on the other side of the vehicle 10. As such, a lop-sided detection zone may be defined.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi in view of Keiichi to include that when the vehicle is determined to be turning, extend the range of detection in a turning direction of the vehicle by adding, to a first range of detection which is set when the vehicle is determined not to be turning, a second range of detection, as taught by Shahriari as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate vehicle sensing when driving maneuvers change (Shahriari Paragraph 3 “Accordingly, it is desirable to provide systems and methods that reduce nuisance alerts of a collision risk and which appropriately alerts a driver of a collision risk.”).
Claims 3-5, 8, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi (US 6281786 B1) (“Adachi”) in view of Keiichi (JP 2019028486 A) (“Keiichi”) (Translation Attached) in view of Shahriari (US 20230365124 A1) (“Shahriari”) further in view of Fukata (US 20140169630 A1) (“Fukata”).
With respect to claim 3, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari fail to explicitly disclose when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the smaller a turning radius of the vehicle is, the more widely the at least one processor extends the range of detection in the turning direction of the vehicle.
Fukata teaches when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the smaller a turning radius of the vehicle is, the more widely the at least one processor extends the range of detection in the turning direction of the vehicle (See at least Fukata FIG. 3 and Paragraphs 47 “The degree of modification of each of the detection regions Raa, Rba is determined in accordance with the turning radius, that is, the degree of modification is determined in accordance with the turning radius to exclude the detection region which may generate a false recognition of a solid object; for example, a relationship is established such that the smaller the turning radius, the relatively larger the degree of modification of each of the detection regions Raa, Rba. However, as previously described, the relationship is established so that the degree of modification differs for the detection regions Raa, Rba on the inside of the turn and the detection regions Raa, Rba on the outside of the turn even in the same turning state.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari to include when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the smaller a turning radius of the vehicle is, the more widely the at least one processor extends the range of detection in the turning direction of the vehicle, as taught by Fukata as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal vehicle sensing (Fukata Paragraph 8 “In view of this situation, the present invention aims to suppress the deterioration of the detection accuracy attributable to the turning state of the vehicle when detecting solid objects.”).
With respect to claim 4, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari fail to explicitly disclose when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the at least one processor sets a point defining the second range of detection at a location closer to a turning center than the first range of detection.
Fukata teaches when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the at least one processor sets a point defining the second range of detection at a location closer to a turning center than the first range of detection (See at least Fukata Paragraph 55 “Furthermore, the detection region modification unit 13 modifies the region length in the traveling direction of the vehicle of the detection region on the inside of the turn (detection regions Raa, Rba in FIG. 6) in accordance with the turning radius of the host vehicle Ca. In the present embodiment, the smaller the turning radius of the host vehicle Ca the shorter the detection region modification unit 13 sets the region length of the detection region. Hereby, the region closest to the host vehicle Ca is set, to a limited extent, as the detection regions Raa, Rba.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari to include when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the at least one processor sets a point defining the second range of detection at a location closer to a turning center than the first range of detection, as taught by Fukata as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal vehicle sensing (Fukata Paragraph 8 “In view of this situation, the present invention aims to suppress the deterioration of the detection accuracy attributable to the turning state of the vehicle when detecting solid objects.”).
With respect to claim 5, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata teach when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the smaller a turning radius of the vehicle is, the closer the at least one processor sets the point defining the second range of detection at a location to the turning center than the first range of detection (See at least Fukata Paragraph 55 “Furthermore, the detection region modification unit 13 modifies the region length in the traveling direction of the vehicle of the detection region on the inside of the turn (detection regions Raa, Rba in FIG. 6) in accordance with the turning radius of the host vehicle Ca. In the present embodiment, the smaller the turning radius of the host vehicle Ca the shorter the detection region modification unit 13 sets the region length of the detection region. Hereby, the region closest to the host vehicle Ca is set, to a limited extent, as the detection regions Raa, Rba.”).
With respect to claim 8, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata teach that at least one processor the turning radius based on at least one of a yaw rate and vehicle speed, a steering angle, a lateral acceleration, or locational information which is based on a GNSS (See at least Keiichi Paragraph 15 “The right / left turn condition includes a first determination condition that the turn signal of the turn signal has been turned on, a second determination condition that the turn signal of the turn indicator is turned on and a certain amount of steering in the lighting direction of the blinker has been performed, a GPS And the third determination condition that it is determined to be in the intersection area from the map information, or some combination thereof is used. It should be noted that the selection and combination of these first to third determination conditions may be configured to the selected quantity in accordance with the vehicle speed of the host vehicle 1.”).
With respect to claim 11, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari fail to explicitly disclose when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the smaller a turning radius of the vehicle is, the closer the at least one processor sets a point defining the second range of detection at a location to a turning center than the first range of detection.
Fukata teaches when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the smaller a turning radius of the vehicle is, the closer the at least one processor sets a point defining the second range of detection at a location to a turning center than the first range of detection (See at least Fukata Paragraph 55 “Furthermore, the detection region modification unit 13 modifies the region length in the traveling direction of the vehicle of the detection region on the inside of the turn (detection regions Raa, Rba in FIG. 6) in accordance with the turning radius of the host vehicle Ca. In the present embodiment, the smaller the turning radius of the host vehicle Ca the shorter the detection region modification unit 13 sets the region length of the detection region. Hereby, the region closest to the host vehicle Ca is set, to a limited extent, as the detection regions Raa, Rba.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari to include when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the smaller a turning radius of the vehicle is, the closer the at least one processor sets a point defining the second range of detection at a location to a turning center than the first range of detection, as taught by Fukata as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal vehicle sensing (Fukata Paragraph 8 “In view of this situation, the present invention aims to suppress the deterioration of the detection accuracy attributable to the turning state of the vehicle when detecting solid objects.”).
With respect to claim 17, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata teach that the travelling hazardous point is detected within the range of detection based on the distance and the azimuth from the vehicle to the travelling hazardous point calculated by the at least one processor (See at least Adachi FIG. 1 and Col. 3 lines 3-21 “Due to detection characteristic of the US sensor, each US sensor gives a short detection range S1 to S8 with a relatively wide directivity around the vehicle for detection of a nearby obstacle. The detection and/or position of the obstacle is acknowledged at a detection unit 30 which is realized in an electronic control unit (ECU) 31 with a microprocessor 32, as shown in FIG. 2. The EM sensors 21 and 22 are mounted at the front center and rear center of the vehicle 1, respectively for monitoring forward and rearward fields of view from the vehicle 1. Each of EM sensors 21 and 22 transmits an electromagnetic wave in a millimeter wave band, for example, 24 GHz and 76-77 GHz as an FM signal and receives a reflected FM signal from an obstacle, if any, at a remote distance from the vehicle to detect and located the obstacle in a known manner. Each of the front and rear EM sensors gives a long detection range L1 and L2 with a relatively narrow directivity for detection of a remote obstacle ahead and behind the vehicle.” | Col. 4 lines 32-57 “When the monitored vehicle speed exceeds 10 km/h, the EM sensors 21 and 22 are activated for detection of the remote obstacles, while all the US sensors are deactivated. In this condition, the detection unit 30 operates to elongate an effective detection distance range L1 as the vehicle speeds increase. For example, when the vehicle speed >10 km/h and <20 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 2 m from the vehicle. When the vehicle speed >=20 km/h and <50 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 10 m. When the vehicle speed >=50 km/h and <100 km/h, the detection range L1 is limited to within 50 m. As the vehicle speed exceeds 100 km/h, the detection range L1 is fixed to within 100 m. Then, the vehicle direction is checked to shift directivity of the EM sensors 21 and 22 in match with an intended direction of the vehicle, either by varying the frequency of the FM signal or varying the angular orientation of the EM sensors 21 and 22. The detection of the remote obstacles by thus adjusted EM sensors is notified by the buzzer 41 and the display 42. Since the detection distance range L1 is shortened as the vehicle speed decrease, it is possible to exclude the detection of any far remote obstacle which is not dangerous to the vehicle and would otherwise cause over-sensitive warning, thereby assuring consistent and effective warning to the user sufficient for safe driving”).
Claims 6-7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi (US 6281786 B1) (“Adachi”) in view of Keiichi (JP 2019028486 A) (“Keiichi”) (Translation Attached) in view of Shahriari (US 20230365124 A1) (“Shahriari”) in view of Fukata (US 20140169630 A1) (“Fukata”) further in view of Shimizu (US 20210300243 A1) (“Shimizu”).
With respect to claim 6, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata fail to explicitly disclose when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the higher a speed of the vehicle is, the farther the at least one processor sets the point defining the second range of detection from the vehicle.
Shimizu teaches when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the higher a speed of the vehicle is, the farther the at least one processor sets the point defining the second range of detection from the vehicle (See at least Shimizu Paragraphs 52-53 “Therefore, the greater the travel distance or the travel time traveled by the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, or the higher the travel speed of the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, the more the warning area is expanded. This allows the warning area to be expanded before the subject vehicle 40 returns to the normal traveling state while avoiding unnecessary notifications. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in a stepwise manner or in a smooth manner (linearly or curvilinearly), as the travel speed, the travel distance, or the travel time of the subject vehicle 40 increases. Alternatively, the area changer 36 may set, for parameters indicating the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40, expansion-execution thresholds for expanding the warning area, and expand the warning area according to the travel speed and others exceeding the expansion-execution thresholds. For example, the area changer 36 sets, for the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time of the subject vehicle 40, their expansion-execution thresholds (i.e., an expansion-execution speed, an expansion-execution distance, and an expansion-execution time) for expanding the warning area. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in response to the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time respectively exceeding the expansion-execution speed, the expansion-execution distance, and the expansion-execution time. Setting the expansion-execution thresholds allows expansion of the warning area to be delayed until the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40 meets a predetermined condition, even after completion of the turn is determined. The expansion-execution thresholds may be set based on forms of intersections, surroundings information, geographic information and other information.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata to include when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the higher a speed of the vehicle is, the farther the at least one processor sets the point defining the second range of detection from the vehicle, as taught by Shimizu as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal sensor detection at various vehicle speeds (Shimizu Paragraph 19 “In view of the foregoing, it is desired to have a driving assistance apparatus that can adequately detect and provide a notification of an object around a subject vehicle throughout a time period from when the subject vehicle enters an intersection to when the subject vehicle leaves the intersection and returns to a normal traveling state”).
With respect to claim 7, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata in view of Shimizu teaches that the higher the speed of the vehicle is, the longer the first range of detection is set to be in the running direction of the vehicle (See at least Shimizu Paragraphs 52-53 “Therefore, the greater the travel distance or the travel time traveled by the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, or the higher the travel speed of the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, the more the warning area is expanded. This allows the warning area to be expanded before the subject vehicle 40 returns to the normal traveling state while avoiding unnecessary notifications. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in a stepwise manner or in a smooth manner (linearly or curvilinearly), as the travel speed, the travel distance, or the travel time of the subject vehicle 40 increases. Alternatively, the area changer 36 may set, for parameters indicating the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40, expansion-execution thresholds for expanding the warning area, and expand the warning area according to the travel speed and others exceeding the expansion-execution thresholds. For example, the area changer 36 sets, for the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time of the subject vehicle 40, their expansion-execution thresholds (i.e., an expansion-execution speed, an expansion-execution distance, and an expansion-execution time) for expanding the warning area. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in response to the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time respectively exceeding the expansion-execution speed, the expansion-execution distance, and the expansion-execution time. Setting the expansion-execution thresholds allows expansion of the warning area to be delayed until the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40 meets a predetermined condition, even after completion of the turn is determined. The expansion-execution thresholds may be set based on forms of intersections, surroundings information, geographic information and other information.”).
With respect to claim 12, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata fail to explicitly disclose when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the higher a speed of the vehicle is, the farther the at least one processor sets the point defining the second range of detection from the vehicle.
Shimizu teaches when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the higher a speed of the vehicle is, the farther the at least one processor sets the point defining the second range of detection from the vehicle (See at least Shimizu Paragraphs 52-53 “Therefore, the greater the travel distance or the travel time traveled by the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, or the higher the travel speed of the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, the more the warning area is expanded. This allows the warning area to be expanded before the subject vehicle 40 returns to the normal traveling state while avoiding unnecessary notifications. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in a stepwise manner or in a smooth manner (linearly or curvilinearly), as the travel speed, the travel distance, or the travel time of the subject vehicle 40 increases. Alternatively, the area changer 36 may set, for parameters indicating the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40, expansion-execution thresholds for expanding the warning area, and expand the warning area according to the travel speed and others exceeding the expansion-execution thresholds. For example, the area changer 36 sets, for the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time of the subject vehicle 40, their expansion-execution thresholds (i.e., an expansion-execution speed, an expansion-execution distance, and an expansion-execution time) for expanding the warning area. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in response to the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time respectively exceeding the expansion-execution speed, the expansion-execution distance, and the expansion-execution time. Setting the expansion-execution thresholds allows expansion of the warning area to be delayed until the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40 meets a predetermined condition, even after completion of the turn is determined. The expansion-execution thresholds may be set based on forms of intersections, surroundings information, geographic information and other information.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata to include when the vehicle is determined to be turning, the higher a speed of the vehicle is, the farther the at least one processor sets the point defining the second range of detection from the vehicle, as taught by Shimizu as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal sensor detection at various vehicle speeds (Shimizu Paragraph 19 “In view of the foregoing, it is desired to have a driving assistance apparatus that can adequately detect and provide a notification of an object around a subject vehicle throughout a time period from when the subject vehicle enters an intersection to when the subject vehicle leaves the intersection and returns to a normal traveling state”).
With respect to claim 13, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata fail to explicitly disclose that the higher the speed of the vehicle is, the longer the first range of detection is set to be in the running direction of the vehicle.
Shimizu teaches that the higher the speed of the vehicle is, the longer the first range of detection is set to be in the running direction of the vehicle (See at least Shimizu Paragraphs 52-53 “Therefore, the greater the travel distance or the travel time traveled by the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, or the higher the travel speed of the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, the more the warning area is expanded. This allows the warning area to be expanded before the subject vehicle 40 returns to the normal traveling state while avoiding unnecessary notifications. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in a stepwise manner or in a smooth manner (linearly or curvilinearly), as the travel speed, the travel distance, or the travel time of the subject vehicle 40 increases. Alternatively, the area changer 36 may set, for parameters indicating the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40, expansion-execution thresholds for expanding the warning area, and expand the warning area according to the travel speed and others exceeding the expansion-execution thresholds. For example, the area changer 36 sets, for the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time of the subject vehicle 40, their expansion-execution thresholds (i.e., an expansion-execution speed, an expansion-execution distance, and an expansion-execution time) for expanding the warning area. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in response to the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time respectively exceeding the expansion-execution speed, the expansion-execution distance, and the expansion-execution time. Setting the expansion-execution thresholds allows expansion of the warning area to be delayed until the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40 meets a predetermined condition, even after completion of the turn is determined. The expansion-execution thresholds may be set based on forms of intersections, surroundings information, geographic information and other information.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata to include that the higher the speed of the vehicle is, the longer the first range of detection is set to be in the running direction of the vehicle, as taught by Shimizu as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal sensor detection at various vehicle speeds (Shimizu Paragraph 19 “In view of the foregoing, it is desired to have a driving assistance apparatus that can adequately detect and provide a notification of an object around a subject vehicle throughout a time period from when the subject vehicle enters an intersection to when the subject vehicle leaves the intersection and returns to a normal traveling state”).
With respect to claim 14, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata fail to explicitly disclose that the higher the speed of the vehicle is, the longer the first range of detection is set to be in the running direction of the vehicle.
Shimizu teaches that the higher the speed of the vehicle is, the longer the first range of detection is set to be in the running direction of the vehicle (See at least Shimizu Paragraphs 52-53 “Therefore, the greater the travel distance or the travel time traveled by the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, or the higher the travel speed of the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, the more the warning area is expanded. This allows the warning area to be expanded before the subject vehicle 40 returns to the normal traveling state while avoiding unnecessary notifications. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in a stepwise manner or in a smooth manner (linearly or curvilinearly), as the travel speed, the travel distance, or the travel time of the subject vehicle 40 increases. Alternatively, the area changer 36 may set, for parameters indicating the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40, expansion-execution thresholds for expanding the warning area, and expand the warning area according to the travel speed and others exceeding the expansion-execution thresholds. For example, the area changer 36 sets, for the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time of the subject vehicle 40, their expansion-execution thresholds (i.e., an expansion-execution speed, an expansion-execution distance, and an expansion-execution time) for expanding the warning area. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in response to the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time respectively exceeding the expansion-execution speed, the expansion-execution distance, and the expansion-execution time. Setting the expansion-execution thresholds allows expansion of the warning area to be delayed until the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40 meets a predetermined condition, even after completion of the turn is determined. The expansion-execution thresholds may be set based on forms of intersections, surroundings information, geographic information and other information.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata to include that the higher the speed of the vehicle is, the longer the first range of detection is set to be in the running direction of the vehicle, as taught by Shimizu as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal sensor detection at various vehicle speeds (Shimizu Paragraph 19 “In view of the foregoing, it is desired to have a driving assistance apparatus that can adequately detect and provide a notification of an object around a subject vehicle throughout a time period from when the subject vehicle enters an intersection to when the subject vehicle leaves the intersection and returns to a normal traveling state”).
With respect to claim 15, Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata fail to explicitly disclose that the higher the speed of the vehicle is, the longer the first range of detection is set to be in the running direction of the vehicle.
Shimizu teaches that the higher the speed of the vehicle is, the longer the first range of detection is set to be in the running direction of the vehicle (See at least Shimizu Paragraphs 52-53 “Therefore, the greater the travel distance or the travel time traveled by the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, or the higher the travel speed of the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn, the more the warning area is expanded. This allows the warning area to be expanded before the subject vehicle 40 returns to the normal traveling state while avoiding unnecessary notifications. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in a stepwise manner or in a smooth manner (linearly or curvilinearly), as the travel speed, the travel distance, or the travel time of the subject vehicle 40 increases. Alternatively, the area changer 36 may set, for parameters indicating the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40, expansion-execution thresholds for expanding the warning area, and expand the warning area according to the travel speed and others exceeding the expansion-execution thresholds. For example, the area changer 36 sets, for the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time of the subject vehicle 40, their expansion-execution thresholds (i.e., an expansion-execution speed, an expansion-execution distance, and an expansion-execution time) for expanding the warning area. The area changer 36 may expand the warning area in response to the travel speed, the travel distance, and the travel time respectively exceeding the expansion-execution speed, the expansion-execution distance, and the expansion-execution time. Setting the expansion-execution thresholds allows expansion of the warning area to be delayed until the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40 meets a predetermined condition, even after completion of the turn is determined. The expansion-execution thresholds may be set based on forms of intersections, surroundings information, geographic information and other information.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adachi in view of Keiichi in view of Shahriari in view of Fukata to include that the higher the speed of the vehicle is, the longer the first range of detection is set to be in the running direction of the vehicle, as taught by Shimizu as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal sensor detection at various vehicle speeds (Shimizu Paragraph 19 “In view of the foregoing, it is desired to have a driving assistance apparatus that can adequately detect and provide a notification of an object around a subject vehicle throughout a time period from when the subject vehicle enters an intersection to when the subject vehicle leaves the intersection and returns to a normal traveling state”).
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 IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 There is no limiting definition as to what constitutes a “traveling hazardous point”, however, the published specification states in paragraph 15 “The assistance apparatus 40 and the assistance apparatus 41 can transmit, to another vehicle, travelling hazardous point information indicating a point which may be hazardous to another vehicle for travelling.”
2 There is no limiting definition as to what constitutes a “traveling hazardous point”, however, the published specification states in paragraph 15 “The assistance apparatus 40 and the assistance apparatus 41 can transmit, to another vehicle, travelling hazardous point information indicating a point which may be hazardous to another vehicle for travelling.”
3 There is no limiting definition as to what constitutes a “traveling hazardous point”, however, the published specification states in paragraph 15 “The assistance apparatus 40 and the assistance apparatus 41 can transmit, to another vehicle, travelling hazardous point information indicating a point which may be hazardous to another vehicle for travelling.”
Prosecution Insights