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 Amendments and Remarks filed on 04/24/2026 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101: The rejection of claim 15 for being patent ineligible is withdrawn, as the amended claim 15 has properly addressed the rejections recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds of rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
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.
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 1-5, 7-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu et al. (JP 2006209333 A, hereinafter “Muramatsu”) in view of Taguchi (JP 2005346333 A). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Muramatsu and Taguchi.
Regarding claim 1, Muramatsu discloses a collision detection apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program instructions, the at least one memory and the computer program instructions configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
detect a first collision detection device and a second collision detection device in a vicinity of the collision detection apparatus (Muramatsu at para. [0069]: “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of the predicted speed, the actual vehicle speed, the predicted position, and the actual position for the vehicles A, B, C, and D. The predicted speed and the predicted position are obtained by the behavior prediction unit 4, and the actual vehicle speed and position are detected by the vehicle behavior information detection unit 1 or the road information detection unit 2”);
communicate with the first collision detection device by (Muramatsu at para. [0015]: “The behavior detecting means detects behavior information of each moving body included in the moving body information. This behavior information may be acquired by communicating with another mobile body, or may be behavior information of a predetermined mobile body. The behavior prediction means predicts each behavior using the behavior information of each mobile object”; The communication with each mobile body (i.e., “first collision device”) must be performed at a certain communication frequency (i.e., “first communication frequency”));
communicate with the second collision detection device by (Muramatsu at para. [0015]: “The behavior detecting means detects behavior information of each moving body included in the moving body information. This behavior information may be acquired by communicating with another mobile body, or may be behavior information of a predetermined mobile body. The behavior prediction means predicts each behavior using the behavior information of each mobile object”; The communication with each mobile body (i.e., “second collision device”) must be performed at a certain communication frequency (i.e., “second communication frequency”));
determine, based on first ranging responses received from the first collision detection device, a first collision indicator (Muramatsu at para. [0016]: “The degree-of-risk determination means is based on the behavior information of each mobile body detected at the predetermined time by the behavior detection means and the predicted behavior information of each mobile body representing the behavior predicted by the behavior prediction means. Quantitatively determine the risk level. The risk level of each moving object represents the degree to which the behavior information at a predetermined time deviates from the predicted behavior information”; The risk level of each mobile body (i.e., “first collision indicator”) is determined based on the behavior information of each mobile body (i.e., “first ranging responses”));
determine, based on second ranging responses received from the second collision detection(Muramatsu at para. [0016]: “The degree-of-risk determination means is based on the behavior information of each mobile body detected at the predetermined time by the behavior detection means and the predicted behavior information of each mobile body representing the behavior predicted by the behavior prediction means. Quantitatively determine the risk level. The risk level of each moving object represents the degree to which the behavior information at a predetermined time deviates from the predicted behavior information”; The risk level (i.e., “second collision indicator”) is determined based on the behavior information of each mobile body (i.e., “second ranging responses”));
determine a priority order for the first collision detection device and the second collision detection device based on the first collision indicator and the second collision indicator (Muramatsu at para. [0094]: “the transmission frequency table indicates that the transmission frequency is lowered (NB, NS) when the degree of risk is equal to or less than the standard value (NB, NS, ZO) and there is a lot of communication traffic (PS, PB). . Thereby, the packet transmission amount of the own vehicle can be suppressed, and priority can be given to transmission of surrounding vehicles with high risk”);
change, based on the priority order, the first communication frequency for further communicating with the first collision detection device and the second communication frequency for further communicating with the second collision detection device (Muramatsu at para. [0024]: “the communication means decreases the transmission frequency of the moving body information of the predetermined moving body as the risk level of the predetermined moving body with respect to the risk level of the other moving body decreases, and increases as the predetermined moving body increases”); and
communicate with the first collision detection device (Muramatsu at para. [0024]: “the communication means decreases the transmission frequency of the moving body information of the predetermined moving body as the risk level of the predetermined moving body with respect to the risk level of the other moving body decreases, and increases as the predetermined moving body increases”; The communication frequency changes based on the risk level. Therefore, each mobile body having different risk levels is further communicated at different frequencies).
However, Muramatsu does not explicitly state:
communicate with the first collision detection device by transmitting first ranging requests at a first communication frequency,
communicate with the second collision detection device by transmitting second ranging requests at a second communication frequency,
communicate with the first collision detection device by transmitting further first ranging requests at the changed first communication frequency and with the second collision detection device by transmitting further second ranging requests at the changed second communication frequency.
In the same field of endeavor, Taguchi teaches:
communicate with the first collision detection device by transmitting first ranging requests at a first communication frequency (Taguchi at pg. 9, ln. 5-6: “Data for requesting a response from E to G is transmitted at time t1, and response data is transmitted from G to E at time t2”; pg. 9, ln. 11: “the transmission frequency is 4 times / second”),
communicate with the second collision detection device by transmitting second ranging requests at a second communication frequency (Taguchi at pg. 9, ln. 6-7: “Data for requesting a response from E to F is transmitted at time t3, and response data is transmitted from F to E at time t4”pg. 9, ln. 13: “the transmission frequency is 8 times / second”),
communicate with the first collision detection device by transmitting further first ranging requests at the changed first communication frequency and with the second collision detection device by transmitting further second ranging requests at the changed second communication frequency (Taguchi at pg. 9, ln. 22-23: “in a low-speed vehicle, the transmission frequency of data for requesting a response is reduced”; The transmission frequency is changed based on the speed which is a collision risk factor (See Taguchi at pg. 1, ln. 22-23). Therefore, a response is requested from the low-speed vehicle (i.e., “first collision detection device”) at a reduced frequency (i.e., “first communication frequency”) and a response is requested from a vehicle in a different speed (i.e., “second collision detection device”) at a reduced frequency corresponding to the different speed (i.e., “second communication frequency”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Muramatsu by adding the ranging requests of Taguchi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Muramatsu in view of Taguchi is to improve reliability of position information to prevent collision.
Regarding claim 2, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Muramatsu further discloses wherein the first collision indicator indicates a likelihood of a collision between a vehicle including the collision detection apparatus and a mobile object including the first collision detection device (Muramatsu at para. [0016]: “The degree-of-risk determination means is based on the behavior information of each mobile body detected at the predetermined time by the behavior detection means and the predicted behavior information of each mobile body representing the behavior predicted by the behavior prediction means. Quantitatively determine the risk level. The risk level of each moving object represents the degree to which the behavior information at a predetermined time deviates from the predicted behavior information”; para. [0103]: “That is, the mobile communication device can preferentially communicate with other vehicles when the degree of danger is high, while suppressing communication traffic around the own vehicle, so there is a risk of collision with other vehicles”).
Regarding claim 3, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Muramatsu further discloses wherein the second collision indicator indicates a likelihood of a collision between a vehicle including the collision detection apparatus and a mobile object including the second collision detection device (Muramatsu at para. [0016]: “The degree-of-risk determination means is based on the behavior information of each mobile body detected at the predetermined time by the behavior detection means and the predicted behavior information of each mobile body representing the behavior predicted by the behavior prediction means. Quantitatively determine the risk level. The risk level of each moving object represents the degree to which the behavior information at a predetermined time deviates from the predicted behavior information”; para. [0103]: “That is, the mobile communication device can preferentially communicate with other vehicles when the degree of danger is high, while suppressing communication traffic around the own vehicle, so there is a risk of collision with other vehicles”).
Regarding claim 4, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Muramatsu further discloses wherein determining the first collision indicator comprises at least one of the following: determining a speed at which the first collision detection device approaches the collision detection apparatus, determining a distance between the first collision detection device and the collision detection apparatus, or determining a type of a mobile object including the first collision detection device (Muramatsu at para. [0010]: “The behavior information means detects, for example, a motion state such as the speed of the moving body and a behavior result of the moving body such as the position of the moving body as the behavior information of the moving body. The behavior prediction means predicts the behavior of the mobile object at a predetermined time using the behavior information of the mobile object”).
Regarding claim 5, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Muramatsu further discloses wherein determining the second collision indicator comprises at least one of the following: determining a speed at which the second collision detection device approaches the collision detection apparatus, determining a distance between the second collision detection device and the collision detection apparatus, or determining a type of a mobile object including the second collision detection device (Muramatsu at para. [0010]: “The behavior information means detects, for example, a motion state such as the speed of the moving body and a behavior result of the moving body such as the position of the moving body as the behavior information of the moving body. The behavior prediction means predicts the behavior of the mobile object at a predetermined time using the behavior information of the mobile object”).
Regarding claim 7, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Muramatsu further discloses wherein changing the first communication frequency comprises increasing or decreasing the first communication frequency, and wherein changing the second communication frequency comprises increasing or decreasing the second communication frequency (Muramatsu at para. [0024]: “the communication means decreases the transmission frequency of the moving body information of the predetermined moving body as the risk level of the predetermined moving body with respect to the risk level of the other moving body decreases, and increases as the predetermined moving body increases”).
Regarding claim 8, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Muramatsu further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to store information on the priority order (Muramatsu at para. [0037]: “The information storage unit 3 is configured by a memory or the like, and sequentially stores information supplied from the vehicle behavior information detection unit 1 and the road information detection unit 2”).
Regarding claim 9, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Muramatsu further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to receive information from a plurality of collision detection sensors (Muramatsu at para. [0034]: “a navigation system is used as the vehicle behavior information detection unit 1 as a GPS sensor, a vehicle speed sensor, and a road information detection unit 2 for detecting a vehicle position”).
Regarding claim 10, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Muramatsu further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to group collision detection sensors part of a collision detection device associated to a mobile object that shall be ranged at the same time (Muramatsu at para. [0036]: “The vehicle behavior information detection unit 1 detects the vehicle speed of the host vehicle as vehicle behavior information, and supplies the detected vehicle speed to the information storage unit 3 and the comparison calculation unit 5. The road information detection unit 2 detects the standard speed (for example, 45 km / h) of the road on which the host vehicle is currently traveling, and supplies this standard speed to the information storage unit 3. Note that the detection timing of the vehicle behavior information detection unit 1 and the road information detection unit 2 is 100 msec.”).
Regarding claim 14, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches a method in a collision detection apparatus, the method comprising:
detecting a first collision detection device and a second collision detection device in a vicinity of the collision detection apparatus (Muramatsu at para. [0069]: “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of the predicted speed, the actual vehicle speed, the predicted position, and the actual position for the vehicles A, B, C, and D. The predicted speed and the predicted position are obtained by the behavior prediction unit 4, and the actual vehicle speed and position are detected by the vehicle behavior information detection unit 1 or the road information detection unit 2”);
communicating with the first collision detection device by (Muramatsu at para. [0015]: “The behavior detecting means detects behavior information of each moving body included in the moving body information. This behavior information may be acquired by communicating with another mobile body, or may be behavior information of a predetermined mobile body. The behavior prediction means predicts each behavior using the behavior information of each mobile object”; The communication with each mobile body (i.e., “first collision device”) must be performed at a certain communication frequency (i.e., “first communication frequency”));
communicating with the second collision detection device by (Muramatsu at para. [0015]: “The behavior detecting means detects behavior information of each moving body included in the moving body information. This behavior information may be acquired by communicating with another mobile body, or may be behavior information of a predetermined mobile body. The behavior prediction means predicts each behavior using the behavior information of each mobile object”; The communication with each mobile body (i.e., “second collision device”) must be performed at a certain communication frequency (i.e., “second communication frequency”));
determining, based on first ranging responses received from the first collision detection(Muramatsu at para. [0016]: “The degree-of-risk determination means is based on the behavior information of each mobile body detected at the predetermined time by the behavior detection means and the predicted behavior information of each mobile body representing the behavior predicted by the behavior prediction means. Quantitatively determine the risk level. The risk level of each moving object represents the degree to which the behavior information at a predetermined time deviates from the predicted behavior information”; The risk level of each mobile body (i.e., “first collision indicator”) is determined based on the behavior information of each mobile body (i.e., “first ranging responses”));
determining, based on second ranging responses received from the second collision detection device, a second collision indicator (Muramatsu at para. [0016]: “The degree-of-risk determination means is based on the behavior information of each mobile body detected at the predetermined time by the behavior detection means and the predicted behavior information of each mobile body representing the behavior predicted by the behavior prediction means. Quantitatively determine the risk level. The risk level of each moving object represents the degree to which the behavior information at a predetermined time deviates from the predicted behavior information”; The risk level (i.e., “second collision indicator”) is determined based on the behavior information of each mobile body (i.e., “second ranging responses”));
determining a priority order for the first collision detection device and the second collision detection device based on the first collision indicator and the second collision indicator (Muramatsu at para. [0094]: “the transmission frequency table indicates that the transmission frequency is lowered (NB, NS) when the degree of risk is equal to or less than the standard value (NB, NS, ZO) and there is a lot of communication traffic (PS, PB). . Thereby, the packet transmission amount of the own vehicle can be suppressed, and priority can be given to transmission of surrounding vehicles with high risk”);
changing, based on the priority order, the first communication frequency for communicating with the first collision detection device and the second communication frequency for communicating with the second collision detection device (Muramatsu at para. [0024]: “the communication means decreases the transmission frequency of the moving body information of the predetermined moving body as the risk level of the predetermined moving body with respect to the risk level of the other moving body decreases, and increases as the predetermined moving body increases”); and
communicating with the first collision detection device (Muramatsu at para. [0024]: “the communication means decreases the transmission frequency of the moving body information of the predetermined moving body as the risk level of the predetermined moving body with respect to the risk level of the other moving body decreases, and increases as the predetermined moving body increases”; The communication frequency changes based on the risk level. Therefore, each mobile body having different risk levels is further communicated at different frequencies).
However, Muramatsu does not explicitly state:
communicating with the first collision detection device by transmitting first ranging requests at a first communication frequency,
communicating with the second collision detection device by transmitting second ranging requests at a second communication frequency,
communicating with the first collision detection device by transmitting further first ranging requests at the changed first communication frequency and with the second collision detection device by transmitting further second ranging requests at the changed second communication frequency.
In the same field of endeavor, Taguchi teaches:
communicating with the first collision detection device by transmitting first ranging requests at a first communication frequency (Taguchi at pg. 9, ln. 5-6: “Data for requesting a response from E to G is transmitted at time t1, and response data is transmitted from G to E at time t2”; pg. 9, ln. 11: “the transmission frequency is 4 times / second”),
communicating with the second collision detection device by transmitting second ranging requests at a second communication frequency (Taguchi at pg. 9, ln. 6-7: “Data for requesting a response from E to F is transmitted at time t3, and response data is transmitted from F to E at time t4”pg. 9, ln. 13: “the transmission frequency is 8 times / second”),
communicating with the first collision detection device by transmitting further first ranging requests at the changed first communication frequency and with the second collision detection device by transmitting further second ranging requests at the changed second communication frequency (Taguchi at pg. 9, ln. 22-23: “in a low-speed vehicle, the transmission frequency of data for requesting a response is reduced”; The transmission frequency is changed based on the speed which is a collision risk factor (See Taguchi at pg. 1, ln. 22-23). Therefore, a response is requested from the low-speed vehicle (i.e., “first collision detection device”) at a reduced frequency (i.e., “first communication frequency”) and a response is requested from a vehicle in a different speed (i.e., “second collision detection device”) at a reduced frequency corresponding to the different speed (i.e., “second communication frequency”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Muramatsu by adding the ranging requests of Taguchi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Muramatsu in view of Taguchi is to improve reliability of position information to prevent collision.
Regarding claim 15, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches the method as claimed in claim 14.
Muramatsu further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer program instructions for causing a collision detection apparatus to perform the method as claimed in claim 14 (Muramatsu at para. [0019]: “the risk determination device according to the second aspect of the present invention includes a ranking unit that ranks the risk of each mobile object based on the risk of each mobile object determined by the risk determination unit. May be further provided. As a result, it is possible to search for a moving body having a high degree of risk from a plurality of moving bodies and to perform predetermined processing on the moving body”; The predetermined processing is inherently performed based on computer program instructions which is stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu in view of Taguchi further in view of Kasagi (JP 2001004730 A). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Kasagi, a copy of which is attached to this Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
Regarding claim 11, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Muramatsu further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, (Muramatsu at para. [0024]: “the communication means decreases the transmission frequency of the moving body information of the predetermined moving body as the risk level of the predetermined moving body with respect to the risk level of the other moving body decreases”).
However, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi does not explicitly state cause the apparatus to monitor the communication with first and second collision detection devices for error rate.
In the same field of endeavor, Kasagi teaches cause the apparatus to monitor the communication with first and second collision detection devices for error rate (Kasagi at para. [0005]: “in this road-vehicle communication system, it is necessary to ensure that the roadside device and the vehicle-mounted device installed in various environments can reliably communicate within a predetermined communication range. As one of the methods, it is effective to measure a bit error rate (BER: Bit Error Rate) that indicates how much error occurs in data transmission and reception”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Muramatsu in view of Taguchi by adding the apparatus to monitor the communication of Kasagi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Muramatsu in view of Taguchi further in view of Kasagi is to provide reliable data communication.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu in view of Taguchi further in view of Ishii et al. (US 2022/0308589 A1, hereinafter “Ishii”).
Regarding claim 12, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi does not explicitly state wherein the apparatus is included in a mobile mining vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Ishii teaches wherein the apparatus is included in a mobile mining vehicle (Ishii at para. [0028]: “The unmanned dump trucks 10-1 to 10-4 are transport vehicles that aim to convey loads, such as earth and sand and ores, can perform unmanned autonomous traveling, and convey earth and sand and mined materials”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Muramatsu in view of Taguchi by adding the mobile mining vehicle of Ishii with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Muramatsu in view of Taguchi further in view of Ishii is to provide improved safety for mining operations.
Regarding claim 13, Muramatsu in view of Taguchi further in view of Ishii teaches the apparatus according to claim 12.
Ishii further teaches wherein the mobile mining vehicle is selected from a rock drilling rig, a loader, a dumper, a load haul dump (LHD) vehicle, a ground support rig, an underground transport vehicle, and a light duty vehicle (Ishii at para. [0028]: “The unmanned dump trucks 10-1 to 10-4 are transport vehicles that aim to convey loads, such as earth and sand and ores, can perform unmanned autonomous traveling, and convey earth and sand and mined materials”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Muramatsu in view of Taguchi further in view of Ishii by adding the mobile mining vehicle of Ishii with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Muramatsu in view of Taguchi further in view of Ishii is to provide improved safety for mining operations.
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 JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights