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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 31-53 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 31, 33, 45, 46, 49, 50, 52, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0019005) in view of Kannon et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0178512).
Consider claim 31. Lee et al. discloses an interactive safety system for a vehicle comprising: one or more processors (paras. 0177-0179 describe a plurality of processors); an audio device connected to the one or more processors (para. 0179 describes an audio device connected to an audio processor); a non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (para. 0181 describes storing a program for execution), cause the one or more processors to: obtain an image of one or more objects external to a vehicle captured by one or more image capturing devices (paras. 0128 and 0129 describe a camera to detect the size and distance of objects external to the transportation apparatus); determine that an object represents a potential collision with the vehicle based on the at least one of the images captured by the one or more image capturing devices (para. 0112 describes displaying a captured image indicating a potential collision); provide an audible warning to an operator of the vehicle based on the determination that the one or more objects represents a potential collision with the vehicle (para. 0112 describes an audible voice message or notice sound).
Lee et al. does not disclose storing at least one of the images based on the presence of a present or imminent critical moment (para. 0038 describes recording image data from a camera when a potential collision is detected); and providing the stored at least one of the images to provide actual actions that occurred during the critical moment (para. 0035 describes receiving image and event data on a smartphone after the occurrence of a collision).
However, Kannon et al. teaches storing at least one of the images based on the presence of a present or imminent critical moment; and providing the stored at least one of the images to provide actual actions that occurred during the critical moment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store at least one of the images based on the presence of a present or imminent critical moment (para. 0038 describes recording image data from a camera when a potential collision is detected); and providing the stored at least one of the images to provide actual actions that occurred during the critical moment, in order to warn a driver of a potential collision as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 33. Lee et al. discloses the interactive safety system of claim 31, wherein to determine that the one or more objects represents a potential collision, the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to: process in real-time the at least one of the images captured by the one or more image capturing devices (paras. 0211 and 0212 describe processing the location, speed, and direction data from the one or more objects external to the transportation apparatus; para. 0219 describes each sensor collecting the road situation on a real time basis and transmitting the road situation); and predict a future location and/or a route of the one or more objects using a predictive algorithm and trajectory analysis, wherein the one or more processors determine that the object represents a potential collision based on the predictive algorithm and trajectory analysis (para. 0265 describes determining the estimated collision point).
Consider claim 45. Lee et al. discloses the interactive safety system of claim 31, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to: provide an audible warning to the one or more objects representing a potential collision, wherein the audible warning is provided externally to the vehicle (para. 0112 describes an audible voice message or notice sound). The motivation to combine is the same as mentioned above in claim 31.
Consider claim 46. Lee et al. discloses the interactive safety system of claim 45, wherein the audible warning is a 3D sound directed toward the object representing a potential collision (para. 0112 describes an audible voice message or notice sound). The motivation to combine is the same as mentioned above in claim 31.
Consider claim 49. Lee et al. discloses the interactive safety system of claim 31, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to: track in real-time the one or more objects external to the vehicle based on the at least one image and the location, speed, and/or direction data of the one or more objects (paras. 0211 and 0212 describe processing the location, speed, and direction data from the one or more objects external to the transportation apparatus; para. 0219 describes each sensor collecting the road situation on a real time basis and transmitting the road situation). The motivation to combine is the same as mentioned above in claim 31.
Consider claim 50. Lee et al. discloses the interactive safety system of claim 31, wherein the interactive safety system further comprises one or more telematics devices configured to transmit vehicle telematics data from the vehicle to the one or more processors, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to: receive the telematics data from the telematics device; and process in real-time the telematics data, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that the one or more objects represents a potential collision with the vehicle based on the telematics data (para. 0023 describes an onboard GPS system). The motivation to combine is the same as mentioned above in claim 31.
Consider claim 52. Lee et al. discloses the interactive safety system of claim 31, wherein the non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: obtain data from one or more sensors related to a location, speed, and/or direction of the one or more objects external to the vehicle (paras. 0211 and 0212 describe processing the location, speed, and/or direction of the objects external to the transportation apparatus).
Consider claim 53. Lee et al. discloses the interactive safety system of claim 52, wherein the non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine that the one or more objects represents a potential collision with the vehicle based on the at least one of the image captured by the one or more image capturing devices and the data from the one or more sensors (para. 0112 describes displaying a captured image indicating a potential collision).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0019005) ) in view of Kannon et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0178512) in further view of Sicconi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0097408).
Consider claim 32. Lee et al. and Kannon et al. disclose all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the audible warning is provided via the aimed audio device casting a sound to a surface redirecting the sound to come from the direction of the one or more objects relative to the vehicle.
However, Sicconi et al. teaches wherein the audible warning is provided via an aimed audio device connected to the one or more processors that casts a sound to a surface redirecting the sound to come from the direction of the one or more objects relative to the vehicle (para. 0020 describes ultrasonic sensors that bounce off nearby object to identify how far away from the vehicle is from the object to alert the operator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the audible warning is provided via an aimed audio device connected to the one or more processors that casts a sound to a surface redirecting the sound to come from the direction of the one or more objects relative to the vehicle, in order to present geographically relevant user-specific recommendations based on vehicle operator attentiveness as suggested by the prior art.
Claims 34-37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0019005) in view of Kannon et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0178512) in further view of Bai et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0096605).
Consider claim 34. Lee et al. and Kannon et al. disclose all claimed limitations as stated above, except a display system connected to the one or more processors, wherein the display system comprises a heads-up display on a windshield of the vehicle and/or a dashboard display on a dashboard of the vehicle.
However, Bai et al. teaches a display system connected to the one or more processors, wherein the display system comprises a heads-up display on a windshield of the vehicle and/or a dashboard display on a dashboard of the vehicle (para. 0075 describes heads-up displays on any portion of a vehicle interior).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a display system connected to the one or more processors, wherein the display system comprises a heads-up display on a windshield of the vehicle and/or a dashboard display on a dashboard of the vehicle, in order to display information and images to be easily viewed as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 35. Bai et al. teaches the interactive safety system of claim 34, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to: display, via the display system, the one or more objects external to the vehicle with location, speed, and/or direction data for the one or more objects (para. 0075 describes heads-up displays on any portion of a vehicle interior). The motivation to combine is the same as mentioned above in claim 34.
Consider claim 36. Bai et al. teaches the interactive safety system of claim 34, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to: display, via the display system, the object representing a potential collision, a predicted future location of the object representing a potential collision, and/or a predicted route of the one or more objects representing a potential collision on the heads-up display and/or the dashboard display (para. 0075 describes heads-up displays on any portion of a vehicle interior). The motivation to combine is the same as mentioned above in claim 34.
Consider claim 37. Lee et al. discloses the interactive safety system of claim 36, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to highlight the one or more objects representing a potential collision on the display system (para. 0213 describes displaying the image in yellow when danger decreases). The motivation to combine is the same as mentioned above in claim 31.
Consider claim 39. Lee et al. discloses the interactive safety system of claim 37, wherein highlighting the object representing a potential collision includes one or more of the following: blinking colors on the one or more objects, circling the object, or blinking circles around the one or more objects (para. 0213 describes a blinking effect). The motivation to combine is the same as mentioned above in claim 31.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0019005) in view of Kannon et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0178512) in further view of Bai et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0096605) in further view of Delorme et al. (US Pat. No. 10,109,200).
Consider claim 38. Lee et al., Kannon et al., and Bai et al. teach all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the one or more objects is highlighted a first color if the object is potentially in a path of an accident or a collision with the vehicle, and wherein the one or more objects is highlighted a second color if the one or more objects is imminently in a path of an accident or a collision with the vehicle.
However, Delorme et al. teaches wherein the one or more objects is highlighted a first color if the one or more objects is potentially in a path of an accident or a collision with the vehicle, and wherein the one or more objects is highlighted a second color if the object is imminently in a path of an accident or a collision with the vehicle (col. 7, line 57 – col. 8, line 3 describe alerts of three different colors to be displayed depending on imminences of the potential collision).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the one or more objects is highlighted a first color if the object is potentially in a path of an accident or a collision with the vehicle, and wherein the one or more objects is highlighted a second color if the one or more objects is imminently in a path of an accident or a collision with the vehicle, in order to present geographically relevant user-specific recommendations based on vehicle operator attentiveness as suggested by the prior art.
Claims 40-42 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0019005) in view of Kannon et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0178512) in further view of Gieseke et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0336876).
Consider claim 40. Lee et al. and Kannon et al. disclose all claimed limitations as stated above, except a pillar display located in the vehicle on an A-pillar of the vehicle and configured to portray an image captured by the one or more image capturing devices that is blocked from view by the A-pillar.
However, Gieseke et al. teaches a pillar display located in the vehicle on an A-pillar of the vehicle and configured to portray an image captured by the one or more image capturing devices that is blocked from view by the A-pillar (para. 0025 describes a pillar display located on an A-pillar of the vehicle configured to portray an image blocked by an obstruction of the A-pillar from the one or more image capturing devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a pillar display located in the vehicle on an A-pillar of the vehicle and configured to portray an image captured by the one or more image capturing devices that is blocked from view by the A-pillar, in order to provide a collision avoidance system as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 41. Lee et al. and Kannon et al. disclose all claimed limitations as stated above, except displaying the image blocked from view by the A-pillar on the pillar display.
However, Gieseke et al. teaches displaying the image blocked from view by the A-pillar on the pillar display (para. 0030 describes displaying the image blocked by the obstruction of the A-pillar on the pillar display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, displaying the image blocked from view by the A-pillar on the pillar display, in order to provide a collision avoidance system as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 42. Lee et al. and Kannon et al. disclose all claimed limitations as stated above, except a rear-view display located in the vehicle and configured to portray an image from the one or more image capturing devices that would be seen in a rear-view mirror, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to: display the image that would be seen in the rear-view mirror on the rear-view display (para. 0013 describes displaying images on an interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle).
However, Gieseke et al. teaches a rear-view display located in the vehicle and configured to portray an image from the one or more image capturing devices that would be seen in a rear-view mirror, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to: display the image that would be seen in the rear-view mirror on the rear-view display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a rear-view display located in the vehicle and configured to portray an image from the one or more image capturing devices that would be seen in a rear-view mirror, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors to: display the image that would be seen in the rear-view mirror on the rear-view display, in order to provide a collision avoidance system as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 48. Lee et al. and Kannon et al. disclose all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the one or more object detecting sensors comprise one or more ultrasonic sensors, one or more LIDAR radar sensors, and/or one or more photoelectric sensors.
However, Gieseke et al. teaches wherein the one or more object detecting sensors comprise one or more ultrasonic sensors, one or more LIDAR radar sensors, and/or one or more photoelectric sensors (para. 0028 describes ultrasonic sensors and LIDAR sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the one or more object detecting sensors comprise one or more ultrasonic sensors, one or more LIDAR radar sensors, and/or one or more photoelectric sensors, in order to provide a collision avoidance system as suggested by the prior art.
Claims 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0019005) in view of Kannon et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0178512) in further view of Salter et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229649).
Consider claim 43. Lee et al. and Kannon et al. disclose all claimed limitations as stated above, except providing a visual warning to the object representing a potential collision, wherein the visual warning is provided external to the vehicle.
However, Salter et al. teaches providing a visual warning to the object representing a potential collision, wherein the visual warning is provided external to the vehicle (para. 0017 describes activating one or more exterior lights).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a visual warning to the object representing a potential collision, wherein the visual warning is provided external to the vehicle, in order to notify vehicle operators of a hazard as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 44. Lee et al. and Kannon et al. disclose all claimed limitations as stated above, except lighting a path of the vehicle with high-intensity lights, wherein the path is visible externally to the vehicle.
However, Salter et al. teaches lighting a path of the vehicle with high-intensity lights, wherein the path is visible externally to the vehicle (para. 0036 describes illuminating a hazard region as shown in fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to light a path of the vehicle with high-intensity lights, wherein the path is visible externally to the vehicle, in order to notify vehicle operators of a hazard as suggested by the prior art.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0019005) in view of Kannon et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0178512) in further view of Koike (JP 2008-62666).
Consider claim 47. Lee et al. and Kannon et al. disclose all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein audible warning is an audio spotlight.
However, Koike teaches wherein audible warning is an audio spotlight (para. 0037 describes generating an audio spotlight to warn of a possible collision).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein audible warning is an audio spotlight, in order to notify vehicle operators of a hazard as suggested by the prior art.
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 Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484