DETAILED ACTION
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 Preliminary Amendment
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on October 15, 2024 amending the title, Fig. 6 by adding an item number, and minor amendments to the claims is entered. No new matter was added. The pending claims and those subject to examination are claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites:
The driving assistance system according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify a region where the moving object is travelable in terms of performance as the region where the moving object is travelable.
In the present filed specification, paragraph 0049 recites that the “travelable region may be defined as a travelable region in terms of performance of the driving control mechanism 21 predicted from various actual measurement values, parameter values, or prescribed values.” That is the most specific written description in the specification, as far as the examiner can tell.
In a broad reasonable interpretation, “in terms of performance,” means: in terms of what the driver has performed on the controls of the vehicle. But the word “performance” could also reasonably imply the capabilities of the vehicle motor or some other performance metric, which the specification does not describe. For examination purposes, the term “performance” will be interpreted as: performance of the driving operation amount.
Claim 15 recites similar language, is rejected for the same reasons, and will be interpreted in the same way.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 17, and 18 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.
Claim 4 recites:
The driving assistance system according to claim 3, wherein
the information regarding the steering angle of the moving object includes information regarding an upper limit value of a change speed of the steering angle of the moving object.
In the present filed disclosure, paragraph 0057 states that Fig. 10 shows that at position 2a the vehicle moving at a constant speed has “the steering angel…changed…such that the change speed becomes the upper limit value”. The phrase “change speed” is not particularly pointed out. Paragraph 0057 states that the vehicle is traveling at a constant speed. The “change speed” appears to refer to the changed steering angle. As best the examiner can tell, this phrase might mean that the system adjusts the upper limit values based on the most recent inputs. This means that the upper limit values are adjusted in real time. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the present claim as meaning: the information regarding the steering angle of the moving object includes information regarding an upper limit value of most recent steering angle of the moving object.
Claims 10 and 17 recite similar language, is rejected for the same reasons, and will be interpreted in the same way.
Claim 5 recites in part:
the information regarding the upper limit value of the change speed of the steering angle of the moving object includes information regarding the remote control mechanism.
The phrase “change speed” has the same problem as the same phrase in claim 4. For examination purposes, the clause that reads: “the information regarding the upper limit value of the change speed of the steering angle of the moving object includes information regarding the remote control mechanism” will be interpreted to mean: the information regarding the upper limit value of most recent steering angle of the moving object includes information from the remote control mechanism.
Claims 11 and 18 recite similar language, is rejected for the same reasons, and will be interpreted in the same way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ono et al. (JP2020083572A).
Regarding claim 1, Ono discloses:
A driving assistance system comprising (see Fig. 1):
at least one memory storing instructions (see Fig. 1 for item 51 for a controller. See item 66 for an image processing unit. The examiner submits that controllers that perform image processing have memory and instructions and a processor.), and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see Fig. 1 for item 51 for a controller. See item 66 for an image processing unit. The examiner submits that controllers that perform image processing have memory and instructions and a processor.);
see the top of page 3 of the examiner-supplied English translation for a system that sends the “command values” for speed, acceleration, and steering angles through the remote control to the controller. In that case “the controller 61 sends the operation content to the…forklift” and the forklift “receives the operation content from the remote control device 40, and the controller 51 drives the actuator unit to execute a desired operation.” In another embodiment, disclosed on at least page 2, “a driver can sit and operate” the forklift controls, including items 36, which is the “steering wheel,” and 37, which is the “brake pedal,” according to page 2.);
specify a region where the moving object is travelable based on the information regarding the driving operation amount see Fig. 7 and the top of page 2 for “the expected traveling locus according to the steering angle…is displayed on the display unit”. This is “in the front and rear direction of the forklift”.); and
see Fig. 7 and the middle of page 3 for the system displaying “the predicted traveling locus” and when the steering angle is zero” the “predicted travel center” is “straight ahead.” Furthermore, and importantly, the “maximum turning circles C1 and C2 do not have to be the turning circles at the maximum steering wheel angle,” as discussed on page 4. Rather, the circles may be “according to the operator’s instruction.” In other words, the system can track the steering of the driver and use that to create the circles to display. Furthermore, one circle or the other may be shown. Also, the “fork tip portions P11 and P12” in Fig. 4 can also be used to create the locus, or the front portion of the pallet the forklift is carrying.).
Regarding claim 2, Ono discloses the driving assistance system according to claim 1.
Ono further discloses:
The driving assistance system according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify a region where the moving object is travelable in terms of performance as the region where the moving object is travelable (see Fig. 7 and the middle of page 3 for the system displaying “the predicted traveling locus” and when the steering angle is zero” the “predicted travel center” is “straight ahead.” Furthermore, and importantly, the “maximum turning circles C1 and C2 do not have to be the turning circles at the maximum steering wheel angle,” as discussed on page 4. Rather, the circles may be “according to the operator’s instruction.” In other words, the system can track the steering of the driver and use that to create the circles to display. Furthermore, one circle or the other may be shown. Also, the “fork tip portions P11 and P12” in Fig. 4 can also be used to create the locus, or the front portion of the pallet the forklift is carrying. See Fig. 8 and page 3 for superimposing the circles C1 and C2 on video of the forklift and then the system will “display them on the display unit 63”.).
Regarding claim 3, Ono discloses the driving assistance system according to claim 1.
Ono further discloses:
The driving assistance system according to claim 1
the information regarding the driving operation amount of the moving object includes information regarding a steering angle of the moving object (see the top of page 3 of the examiner-supplied English translation for a system that sends the “command values” for speed, acceleration, and steering angles through the remote control to the controller. In that case “the controller 61 sends the operation content to the…forklift” and the forklift “receives the operation content from the remote control device 40, and the controller 51 drives the actuator unit to execute a desired operation.” In another embodiment, disclosed on at least page 2, “a driver can sit and operate” the forklift controls, including items 36, which is the “steering wheel,” and 37, which is the “brake pedal,” according to page 2.), and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify a boundary line of the travelable region based on the information regarding the steering angle of the moving object (in the present filed specification see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0050 for the boundary lines SL1 and SL2.
With that in mind, see Ono the top of page 3 of the examiner-supplied English translation for a system that sends the “command values” for speed, acceleration, and steering angles through the remote control to the controller. In that case “the controller 61 sends the operation content to the…forklift” and the forklift “receives the operation content from the remote control device 40, and the controller 51 drives the actuator unit to execute a desired operation.” In another embodiment, disclosed on at least page 2, “a driver can sit and operate” the forklift controls, including items 36, which is the “steering wheel,” and 37, which is the “brake pedal,” according to page 2.).
Regarding claim 4, Ono discloses the driving assistance system according to claim 3.
Ono further discloses:
The driving assistance system according to claim 3, wherein
the information regarding the steering angle of the moving object includes information regarding an upper limit value of a change speed of the steering angle of the moving object (see Ono the top of page 3 of the examiner-supplied English translation for a system that sends the “command values” for speed, acceleration, and steering angles through the remote control to the controller. In that case “the controller 61 sends the operation content to the…forklift” and the forklift “receives the operation content from the remote control device 40, and the controller 51 drives the actuator unit to execute a desired operation.” In another embodiment, disclosed on at least page 2, “a driver can sit and operate” the forklift controls, including items 36, which is the “steering wheel,” and 37, which is the “brake pedal,” according to page 2. The examiner submits that this is real-time display of the real-time steering angle.).
Regarding claim 5, Ono discloses the driving assistance system according to claim 4.
Ono further discloses:
The driving assistance system according to claim 4, wherein
the moving object includes a remote control mechanism that operates a steering mechanism of the moving object based on remote control by the user (see the top of page 3 of the examiner-supplied English translation for a system that sends the “command values” for speed, acceleration, and steering angles through the remote control to the controller. In that case “the controller 61 sends the operation content to the…forklift” and the forklift “receives the operation content from the remote control device 40, and the controller 51 drives the actuator unit to execute a desired operation.”), and
the information regarding the upper limit value of the change speed of the steering angle of the moving object includes information regarding the remote control mechanism (see the above bullet. The real-time command from the remote control unit includes the steering angle command.).
Regarding claim 6, Ono discloses the driving assistance system according to claim 1.
Ono further discloses:
The driving assistance system according to claim1, wherein
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify a boundary line indicating a range in which the moving object is travelable in a left-right direction as a boundary line of the travelable region (see Figs. 7 and 8. See page 4 for displaying the “maximum turning circles C1 and C2.” In some cases these “do not have to be the turning circles at the maximum steering wheel angle”. Rather, the system can instead display circles “according to the operator’s instruction.” In other words, the system can track the steering of the driver and use that to create the circles to display. Furthermore, one circle or the other may be shown. Also, the “fork tip portions P11 and P12” in Fig. 4 can also be used to create the locus, or the front portion of the pallet the forklift is carrying. These display options meet the present limitation.).
Regarding claim 8, Ono discloses:
A driving assistance apparatus comprising (see Fig. 1):
at least one memory storing instructions (see Fig. 1 for item 51 for a controller. See item 66 for an image processing unit. The examiner submits that controllers that perform image processing have memory and instructions and a processor.), and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see Fig. 1 for item 51 for a controller. See item 66 for an image processing unit. The examiner submits that controllers that perform image processing have memory and instructions and a processor.);
see the top of page 3 of the examiner-supplied English translation for a system that sends the “command values” for speed, acceleration, and steering angles through the remote control to the controller. In that case “the controller 61 sends the operation content to the…forklift” and the forklift “receives the operation content from the remote control device 40, and the controller 51 drives the actuator unit to execute a desired operation.” In another embodiment, disclosed on at least page 2, “a driver can sit and operate” the forklift controls, including items 36, which is the “steering wheel,” and 37, which is the “brake pedal,” according to page 2.);
specify a region where the moving object is travelable based on the information regarding the driving operation amount see Fig. 7 and the top of page 2 for “the expected traveling locus according to the steering angle…is displayed on the display unit”. This is “in the front and rear direction of the forklift”.); and
see Fig. 7 and the middle of page 3 for the system displaying “the predicted traveling locus” and when the steering angle is zero” the “predicted travel center” is “straight ahead.” Furthermore, and importantly, the “maximum turning circles C1 and C2 do not have to be the turning circles at the maximum steering wheel angle,” as discussed on page 4. Rather, the circles may be “according to the operator’s instruction.” In other words, the system can track the steering of the driver and use that to create the circles to display. Furthermore, one circle or the other may be shown. Also, the “fork tip portions P11 and P12” in Fig. 4 can also be used to create the locus, or the front portion of the pallet the forklift is carrying.).
Regarding claims 9-12, they are substantially similar to claims 3-6, respectively. Please see the rejections of those claims.
Regarding claim 14, Ono discloses:
A driving assistance method comprising:
acquiring information regarding a driving operation amount of a moving object (see the top of page 3 of the examiner-supplied English translation for a system that sends the “command values” for speed, acceleration, and steering angles through the remote control to the controller. In that case “the controller 61 sends the operation content to the…forklift” and the forklift “receives the operation content from the remote control device 40, and the controller 51 drives the actuator unit to execute a desired operation.” In another embodiment, disclosed on at least page 2, “a driver can sit and operate” the forklift controls, including items 36, which is the “steering wheel,” and 37, which is the “brake pedal,” according to page 2.);
specifying a region where the moving object is travelable based on the acquired information regarding the driving operation amount (see Fig. 7 and the top of page 2 for “the expected traveling locus according to the steering angle…is displayed on the display unit”. This is “in the front and rear direction of the forklift”.); and
displaying the specified region to a user (see Fig. 7 and the middle of page 3 for the system displaying “the predicted traveling locus” and when the steering angle is zero” the “predicted travel center” is “straight ahead.” Furthermore, and importantly, the “maximum turning circles C1 and C2 do not have to be the turning circles at the maximum steering wheel angle,” as discussed on page 4. Rather, the circles may be “according to the operator’s instruction.” In other words, the system can track the steering of the driver and use that to create the circles to display. Furthermore, one circle or the other may be shown. Also, the “fork tip portions P11 and P12” in Fig. 4 can also be used to create the locus, or the front portion of the pallet the forklift is carrying.).
Regarding claims 15-19, they are substantially similar to claims 2-6, respectively. Please see the rejections of those claims.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 7, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Nister et al. (US2019/0243371).
Regarding claim 7, Ono discloses the driving assistance system according to claim 1.
Yet Ono does not further disclose:
The driving assistance system according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify a boundary line indicating a range in which the moving object is travelable in a traveling direction based on information regarding a moving speed of the moving object.
However, Nister teaches:
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify a boundary line indicating a range in which the moving object is travelable in a traveling direction based on information regarding a moving speed of the moving object (see Nister Fig. 3F, attached below, and paragraph 0115 for the “object-occupied trajectory” 320 of the host vehicle 102. See paragraph 0190 for these being displayed. See paragraph 0205 for teaching that the vehicle occupied trajectories can represent the “maximum and minimum steering and/or braking” trajectories. According to paragraph 0208 these profiles can also including “different braking profiles, steering profiles, etc.” See paragraph 0156 for the speed of the vehicle and its turning angle being involved in calculating the vehicle-occupied trajectories.).
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 system, as taught by Ono, to add the additional features of the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to specify a boundary line indicating a range in which the moving object is travelable in a traveling direction based on information regarding a moving speed of the moving object, as taught by Nister. The motivation for doing so would be to “avoid collisions with objects in the environment” and “to assist a human driver in driving the vehicle 102,” as recognized by Nister (see paragraphs 0006 and 0219).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1018
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – Nister et al. (US2019/0243371), Fig. 3F
PNG
media_image2.png
708
1030
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 – Nister et al. (US2019/0243371), Figs. 6A and 6B
Regarding claims 13 and 20, they are substantially similar to claim 7. Please see the rejection for that claim.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Suzuki et al. (US2022/0365527) teaches at least remote automatic parking showing where the vehicle will be.
PNG
media_image3.png
634
703
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yamamoto (US2021/0081684) teaches at least displaying the turning radius boundaries of a vehicle. See at least paragraph 0157.
PNG
media_image4.png
656
1078
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
592
716
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
606
1094
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kubota et al. (JP2001213253A) teaches at least determining where a vehicle will be in the future based on steering angle. See the figures 5-7 below.
PNG
media_image7.png
602
557
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fukaya (JP2012056534A) teaches in at least Fig. 3a and 3b a user selecting whether to back in or pull forward into a parking space.
PNG
media_image8.png
473
627
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Konishi (JP2010069943A) teaches at least displaying a vehicle’s travelable area.
PNG
media_image9.png
717
982
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Mitsugi (JP2015076645A) teaches at least displaying a vehicle’s travelable area.
PNG
media_image10.png
837
1069
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Takano (JP2017154516A) teaches at least determining a vehicle’s steering radius.
PNG
media_image11.png
964
724
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
979
660
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665