DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application and a Preliminary Amendment filed on November 4, 2024, and two Information Disclosure Statements, filed on November 4, 2024 and September 2, 2025, respectively. This action is made non-final.
2. Claims 13-20 are pending in the case. Claim 13 is independent claim; in the Preliminary Amendment, Claims 1-12 were canceled and Claims 13-20 were added.
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
4. The title of the invention (“Information processing device”) is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, the new could incorporate “caus[ing a] warning when a future trajectory … of a vehicle … intersects an obstacle located at a side of a direction of travel of the vehicle,” or similar, in order to be indicative of the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
* Claim 18 recites “wherein the controller configured to calculate the length…,” but it appears that this portion of the claim should recite “wherein the controller is configured to calculate the length…,” instead.
* Claim 19 recites “wherein the controller to generate…,” but it appears that this portion of the claim should recite “wherein the controller is configured to generate…,” instead.
* Claim 20 recites “wherein the controller configured to emit…,” but it appears that this portion of the claim should recite “wherein the controller is configured to emit…,” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
6. Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, US 2020/0231210 A1, published on July 23, 2020, in view of Ferrer et al. (hereinafter Ferrer), US 2021/0039715 A1, published on February 11, 2021.
With respect to independent Claim 13, Anderson teaches information processing device comprising a controller configured to cause warning when a future trajectory of a position shifted in a width direction of a vehicle by a prescribed spacing from a first position of an outer surface of the vehicle when turning right or left intersects an obstacle located at a side of a direction of travel of the vehicle (see Figs. 4 and 5, ¶¶ 0032-33, 0036, 0038-40, 0049-53, showing a display that is generated to inform the driver about potential obstacles in/near the vehicle’s projected path, further showing that projected path is generated for different points of the vehicle (i.e., left-most point, right-most point) and that a determination is made whether an obstacle intersects (or is within threshold distance from) the projected path).
It is noted that Anderson illustrates the vehicle having a moveable/pivotable member, but Anderson makes it clear that the left-most and right-most points are determined regardless of the moveable member and that a projected paths are generated for such points (see ¶¶ 0049-51). In addition, while Anderson reads on “cause warning” as recited in the claim (see ¶¶ 0002, 0040, 0053, 0058, showing a notification of a potential obstacle by using different styles to distinguish/highlight a potential obstacle), a skilled artisan would understand that such notification can be provided in various ways, such as an explicit (visual or audio) alert or sign, as suggested by the teachings of Ferrer.
Ferrer is directed towards turn path visualization to improve spatial and situational awareness in turn maneuvers (see Ferrer, Title). Ferrer teaches determining and presenting a vehicle’s path with respect to the driver’s intent based on one or more properties of the vehicle (i.e., static properties and/or variable properties) (see Ferrer, ¶¶ 0017, 0019, 0036). Ferrer explicitly illustrates determining a potential obstacle on or near the projected path, and generates an alert (i.e., audio, visual, etc.) to the driver when a probability of collision is determined (see Ferrer, ¶ 0040). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the instant Application was filed, to incorporate the alerts described in Ferrer into the driver’s interface of Anderson, in order to ensure that the driver is aware of the potential collision with an obstacle (see Ferrer, ¶ 0040).
With respect to dependent Claim 14, Anderson in view of Ferrer teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the first position is a position of a maximum movement part that moves with a maximum radius of curvature when turning right or left of the vehicle (see Figs. 4 and 5, ¶¶ 0032-33, 0050-51, showing a determination of a left-most and right-most points of the vehicle that have the largest radius when the vehicle turns in corresponding direction).
With respect to dependent Claim 15, Anderson in view of Ferrer teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the controller is configured to determine the prescribed spacing based on a length of the vehicle in a front-back direction (see Ferrer, ¶ 0017, showing that various properties of the vehicle, including static properties (i.e., vehicle’s dimensions, turning radius, turning dynamics, etc.) and/or dynamic properties (i.e., current steering angle, current speed, etc.) can be used to project the vehicle’s path).
With respect to dependent Claim 16, Anderson in view of Ferrer teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the controller is configured to determine the prescribed spacing based on a traveling velocity of the vehicle (see Ferrer, ¶ 0017, showing that various properties of the vehicle, including static properties (i.e., vehicle’s dimensions, turning radius, turning dynamics, etc.) and/or dynamic properties (i.e., current steering angle, current speed, etc.) can be used to project the vehicle’s path).
With respect to dependent Claim 17, Anderson in view of Ferrer teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, as discussed above, and while Anderson in view of Ferrer does not appear to explicitly show wherein the controller is configured to determine the prescribed spacing based on a weight of cargo loaded on the vehicle, Ferrer suggests that various vehicle properties (including static and/or dynamic properties) can be used to project the vehicle’s path (see Ferrer, ¶ 0017), and a skilled artisan would understand that significant changes in vehicle’s properties, such as vehicle’s weight, would affect the projected path.
With respect to dependent Claim 18, Anderson in view of Ferrer teaches the information processing device according to claim 15, as discussed above, and while Anderson in view of Ferrer does not appear to explicitly illustrate an interface configured to acquire an image of surroundings including a side surface of the vehicle, wherein the controller [is] configured to calculate the length of the vehicle in a front-back direction based on the image, a skilled artisan would understand that vehicle properties described in Anderson and/or Ferrer can be obtained/calculated in various ways, including using different available sensors (see Anderson, ¶ 0052, illustrating how dimensions of an obstacle can be calculated using vehicle’s sensors – a skilled artisan would understand that vehicle’s length (a static property described in Ferrer (¶ 0017)) can be calculated in the same manner if desired).
With respect to dependent Claim 19, Anderson in view of Ferrer teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, as discussed above, and further suggests an interface configured to acquire an image of surroundings including a side surface of the vehicle, wherein the controller to generate, using the image of the surroundings, an assistance image in which a first partial image is superimposed on a second partial image, the first partial image indicating the future trajectory, the second partial image including an image of at least part of the vehicle (see Anderson, Fig. 5, ¶ 0056).
With respect to dependent Claim 20, Anderson in view of Ferrer teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the controller configured to emit a warning sound from a speaker as a warning (see Ferrer, ¶ 0040).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on 571-272-5109. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667