DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 11-22 remain pending.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 15, the term “the braking control device” lacks antecedent basis.
(b) Regarding Claim 18, the term “the left and right of the track” lacks antecedent basis.
(c) Regarding Claim 20, the term “the braking control unit” lacks antecedent basis.
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 11-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimanaka et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0227420A1 (hereinafter, Shimanaka), in view of Ito et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0135079A1 (hereinafter, Ito), in further view Inoue et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0295682A1 (Inoue).
Regarding Claim 11, Shimanaka describes a driving assistance device (driving assistance device, Shimanaka, Paragraph 0037) comprising:
-a storage medium configured to store computer-readable instructions (storage medium for storing instructions, Shimanaka, Paragraph 0038 and Figure 1); and
-one or more processors connected to the storage medium (processing units, Shimanaka, Paragraph 0038 and Figure 1), wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-readable instructions to:
-refer to an output of a detection device that detects presence of objects in front of a vehicle (detection unit that determines the presence of objects around the vehicle (i.e., radar), Shimanaka, Paragraph 0040), …
-instruct a steering device of the vehicle to avoid contact with the target object by steering; perform a first preliminary operation when the degree of proximity satisfies a second condition (instruction a steering device of the vehicle to avoid contact with a target object (e.g., another vehicle) by performing a first operation when the degree of proximity (i.e., threshold) satisfies a condition (i.e., second condition such as TTC), Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0022-0024 and Figure 8);
-perform a second preliminary operation when the degree of proximity satisfies a third condition and it is determined that there is no space in which the vehicle is able to proceed after avoidance by the steering is performed in any of tracks to sides of the target object at a time point when the third condition is satisfied (vehicle can determine if there is any space after a steering operation is performed and then determine if the vehicle can proceed with any other additional paths for steering, Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0112-0132, 0054, and 0083-0091 and Figure 8); and
-… the first condition is a condition that is satisfied when the degree of proximity is higher than the second condition, and the second condition is a condition that is satisfied when the degree of proximity is higher than the third condition (first, second, and third conditions, wherein the second condition can be a condition that is started at an earlier time than the first (e.g., wheels are steering in the direction of avoidance, so braking to avoid does not have to occur as soon), in other words the conditions can be threshold values for performing desired actions (e.g., braking, steering, reducing speed, etc.), Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0088-0090).
Shimanaka does not specifically disclose the device to include instruct[ing] a braking device of the vehicle to stop the vehicle when a degree of proximity between a target object among the objects and the vehicle satisfies a first condition.
Ito discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ito describes a vehicle capable of stopping the vehicle when said vehicle determines a condition is met for proximity between an object and the vehicle (Ito, Paragraph 0055 and Figure 4).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Shimanaka to include instructing a braking device of the vehicle to stop the vehicle when a degree of proximity between a target object among the objects and the vehicle satisfies a first condition, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ito.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because instructing a vehicle to stop when a condition is met ensures safer operation of the vehicle (Ito, Paragraphs 0080 and 0087).
Additionally, Shimanaka and Ito do not specifically disclose the device to include perform[ing] a third preliminary operation when a presence of the target object is unknown and tracks to sides of a track on which the vehicle is present are in a congested state.
Inoue discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Inoue describes a vehicle capable performing an operation (e.g., V2V) when a presence of an object that is unknown is around the vehicle during traffic flow (i.e., congested state) (Inoue, Paragraphs 0026-0031, 0036, and 0057 and Figure 1).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Shimanaka to include performing a third preliminary operation when a presence of the target object is unknown and tracks to sides of a track on which the vehicle is present are in a congested state, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Inoue.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining an unknown object around a vehicle and taking action based on the detection allows for reduced traffic interruption and accidents (Inoue, Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 12, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 11, wherein the second preliminary operation is an operation started at an earlier timing than the first preliminary operation (first and second condition, wherein the second condition can be a condition that is started at an earlier time than the first (e.g., wheels are steering in the direction of avoidance, so braking to avoid does not have to occur as soon), Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0088-0090).
Regarding Claim 13, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 11, wherein at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing the braking device to output a braking force smaller than a braking force that the braking device is instructed to output to stop the vehicle when a proximity degree between a target object among the objects and the vehicle satisfies a first condition (causing a smaller braking force than first determined when it is determined that the distance between the vehicle and object is greater than a threshold, Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0022-0024).
Regarding Claim 14, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 13, wherein both the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing the braking device to output a braking force smaller than a braking force that the braking device is instructed to output to stop the vehicle when a proximity degree between a target object among the objects and the vehicle satisfies a first condition (causing a smaller braking force than first determined when it is determined that the distance between the vehicle and object is greater than a threshold, Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0022-0024), and a braking force that is initially output in the second preliminary operation is smaller than a braking force that is initially output in the first preliminary operation (causing a smaller braking force than first determined when it is determined that the distance between the vehicle and object is greater than a threshold, this can be for a second preliminary operation, Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0022-0024).
Regarding Claim 15, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 14.
Shimanaka does not specifically disclose the device to include that the third preliminary operation is an operation of instructing an output device to perform a display, a voice output, or a vibration output for calling attention, and then instructing the braking device to output a braking force smaller than a braking force that the braking control device is instructed to output to stop the vehicle when the degree of proximity between a target object among the objects and the vehicle satisfies the first condition. Ito discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ito describes the ability to output information calling for attention to the driver (Ito, Paragraph 0160).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Shimanaka to include that the third preliminary operation is an operation of instructing an output device to perform a display, a voice output, or a vibration output for calling attention, and then instructing the braking device to output a braking force smaller than a braking force that the braking control device is instructed to output to stop the vehicle when the degree of proximity between a target object among the objects and the vehicle satisfies the first condition, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ito.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying information to a driver helps the driver being alert to information (Ito, Paragraph 0160).
Regarding Claim 16, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 11, wherein the third preliminary operation includes an operation of instructing the braking device and a traveling drive force output device of the vehicle to suppress acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle until the target object is recognized (vehicle ability to apply or suppress acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle (e.g., apply braking or stop applying braking) based on detected objects, Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0071-0072 and 0077-0080).
Regarding Claim 17, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 11.
Shimanaka does not specifically disclose the device to include that the one or more processors execute the computer-readable instructions: to perform the third preliminary operation when the presence of the target object is unknown and all of the tracks to the sides of the track on which the vehicle is present are in a congested state; and not to perform the third preliminary operation when at least one of the tracks to the sides of the track on which the vehicle is present is not in a congested state.
Inoue discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Inoue describes a vehicle capable performing an operation (e.g., V2V) when a presence of an object that is unknown is around the vehicle during traffic flow (i.e., congested state), but also performing an operation (e.g., V2V) when no vehicle is around (i.e., not a congested state) (Inoue, Paragraphs 0026-0031, 0036, and 0057 and Figure 1).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Shimanaka to include that the one or more processors execute the computer-readable instructions: to perform the third preliminary operation when the presence of the target object is unknown and all of the tracks to the sides of the track on which the vehicle is present are in a congested state; and not to perform the third preliminary operation when at least one of the tracks to the sides of the track on which the vehicle is present is not in a congested state, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Inoue.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining an unknown object around a vehicle and taking action based on the detection allows for reduced traffic interruption and accidents (Inoue, Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 19, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device wherein the second preliminary operation is an operation started at an earlier timing than the first preliminary operation, and at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing the braking device to output a braking force smaller than a braking force that the braking device is instructed to output to stop the vehicle when a degree of proximity between a target object among the objects and the vehicle satisfies the first condition (causing a smaller braking force than first determined when it is determined that the distance between the vehicle and object is greater than a threshold, Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0022-0024).
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 14 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 21, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 11 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 22, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 11 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667