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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 11, “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” refers back to “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” in line 9. It should be amended to “the neighboring vehicle” and “the large-size vehicle”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” refers back to “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” in claim 1, line 9. It should be amended to “the neighboring vehicle” and “the large-size vehicle”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12, “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” refers back to “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” in line 10. It should be amended to “the neighboring vehicle” and “the large-size vehicle”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” refers back to “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” in claim 5, line 10. It should be amended to “the neighboring vehicle” and “the large-size vehicle”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” refers back to “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” in claim 5, line 10. It should be amended to “the neighboring vehicle” and “the large-size vehicle”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 13, “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” refers back to “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” in line 11. It should be amended to “the neighboring vehicle” and “the large-size vehicle”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” refers back to “a neighboring vehicle” and “a large-size vehicle” in claim 13, line 11. It should be amended to “the neighboring vehicle” and “the large-size vehicle”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 10,553,116) in view of Barrera (US 2024/0416899).
Regarding claim 1: Yi discloses a collision warning method, to be implemented by a collision warning system (image monitoring system) that is adapted to be used on a subject vehicle (110), the collision warning system including a storage (memory), a recording device (cameras, 120, 130), an output device (alarm) and a processor (controller) electrically connected to the storage, the recording device and the output device, the storage storing at least one left-right distance threshold and at least one blind-spot coverage threshold (blind-spot areas (310, 320, 330) regarding the distance in the ROI; col. 9, lines 41-67), the recording device (cameras, 120, 130) being disposed on the subject vehicle (110), and recording a view behind the subject vehicle to obtain a video that contains image data (Fig. 3), the method comprising: the processor determining whether there is a neighboring vehicle in the video based on the image data; in response to determining that there is a neighboring vehicle in the video, the processor determining whether the neighboring vehicle is obliquely behind the subject vehicle based on the image data of the video (ROI, 310, 320 are obliquely behind the subject vehicle; Fig. 3); and in response to determining that the neighboring vehicle is obliquely behind the subject vehicle, the processor determining, based on the image data of the video, a relative distance between the subject vehicle and the neighboring vehicle, the processor determining whether a second warning condition (warning condition from ROI; 310, to 320, to 330) is satisfied based on the relative distance of the subject vehicle, the second warning condition being related to said at least one left-right distance threshold and said at least one blind-spot coverage threshold, and the processor controlling the output device (alarm) to output a second warning notification in response to determining that the second warning condition is satisfied (col. 9, line 14-col. 10, line 54). Yi does not disclose the detection of a large-size vehicle. Barrera discloses a vehicle collision detection system in which a vehicle detects a large-vehicle and it’s turn to avoid any impact [0010, 0218]; (Figs. 3A, 3B). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect the large-vehicle as taught by Barrera in a system as disclosed by Yi to further detect/recognized different size vehicles and safely avoid severe collisions between normal vehicles and large-vehicles.
Regarding claim 2: Yi discloses further comprising, in response to determining that there is a neighboring vehicle in the video, the processor starting a blind spot detection procedure (detection of vehicle in ROI, 310, 320,330) (col. 9, line 14-col. 10, line 54). Yi does not disclose the detection of a large-size vehicle. Barrera discloses a vehicle collision detection system in which a vehicle detects a large-vehicle and it’s turn to avoid any impact [0010, 0218]; (Figs. 3A, 3B). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect the large-vehicle as taught by Barrera in a system as disclosed by Yi to further detect/recognized different size vehicles and safely avoid severe collisions between normal vehicles and large-vehicles.
Regarding claim 3: Yi discloses the blind spot detection procedure is continued for a preset time period (col. 10, lines 24-50-55).
Regarding claim 4: Yi discloses the blind spot detection procedure is continued until the neighboring vehicle eventually disappears in the video (col. 10, lines 24-50-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Pawlicki et al. (US 9,555,803) discloses a driver assistance system for a vehicle includes a forward-viewing camera disposed in a windshield electronics module attached at a windshield of the vehicle and viewing through the windshield.
-Smith et al. (US 2016/0252610) discloses a radar system for detecting an object in a blind-spot zone of an operator of a vehicle includes the step of providing a system configured to detect objects proximate to a vehicle using radar.
-Lao et al. (US 8,633,810) discloses a rear-view multi-functional camera system.
-Breed et al. (US 7,209,221) discloses a method for obtaining information about objects in an environment around a vehicle in which infrared light is emitted into a portion of the environment and received and the distance between the vehicle and objects from which the infrared light is reflected is measured.
-Patchell (US 2004/0148063) discloses a blind-spot detection system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN NGOC PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2967. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (7 AM - 3:30 PM).
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/TOAN N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 11/25/25