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 Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
Amendments and Remarks filed on 03/07/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follow:
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. While the additional limitation to claim 1 of “wherein the outputting of the warning to the exterior comprises outputting a warning by controlling at least one of a mirror, a lighting device, or a horn of the vehicle,” is an active control step, it still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for every case of a warning target. If the warning target is an interior and/or a surrounding object, the outputting of the warning would still be insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying information. Given the invention can be practiced in the absence of an exterior warning target, claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-20 are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process) without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method of controlling a vehicle, the method comprising:
sensing whether there is an object, which can be positioned, around a subject vehicle based on a short-range wireless communication protocol that supports spatial positioning or direction recognition [insignificant extra solution activity i.e. data collecting];
in response to sensing an object around the subject vehicle, determining whether at least one of position and behavior of the sensed object satisfies a preset warning condition [mental process/step];
selecting at least one of an interior, an exterior, or a surrounding object as a warning target based on a relative position of the sensed object [mental process/step]; and
outputting a warning to the selected warning target when the preset warning condition is satisfied, wherein the outputting of the warning to the exterior comprises outputting a warning by controlling at least one of a mirror, a lighting device, or a horn of the vehicle [insignificant extra-solution activity when warning target is an interior or a surrounding object i.e. displaying information].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 1 is directed to a process. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four
statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be
analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following
groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain
methods of organizing human activity.
The examiner submits that the limitation “in response to sensing an object around the subject vehicle, determining whether at least one of position and behavior of the sensed object satisfies a preset warning condition” and “selecting at least one of an interior, an exterior, or a surrounding object as a warning target based on a relative position of the sensed object” constitutes a judicial exception in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. For example, a driver can visually see a person standing in the middle of the road and yell at him “Get out of the middle of the road!”.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it
must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea
integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit
on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely
using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity,
or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or
field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations
recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical
application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “sensing whether there is an object, which can be positioned, around a subject vehicle based on a short-range wireless communication protocol that supports spatial positioning or direction recognition”, the examiner submits that this step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitation of “outputting a warning to the selected warning target when the preset warning condition is satisfied, wherein the outputting of the warning to the exterior comprises outputting a warning by controlling at least one of a mirror, a lighting device, or a horn of the vehicle”, the examiner submits that this step is still considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The cases where the waring target is an interior and/or a surrounding object, the outputting of a warning includes the mere display of information. The claim language of “selecting at least of one” means the invention can be practiced in the absence of the exterior condition where an active control step takes place.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a
whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional
element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim
amount to no more than mere insignificant extra-solution activities. The same analysis applies
here in 2B, i.e., mere data collecting and processing and displaying data cannot integrate a
judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step
2B. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent apparatus claim 11 recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim 1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 3, 5-10, 13, and 15-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial
exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial
exception into a “practical application”.
Therefore, dependent claims 3, 5-10, 13, and 15-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, and 15-20 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
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, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won (US PGPub 2019/0135306) in view of Orlando (US PGPub 2022/0292973) and in further view of Stent (US PGPub 2022/0189308).
Regarding claim 1, Won teaches
A method of controlling a vehicle, the method comprising: sensing whether there is an object, which can be positioned, around a subject vehicle [Won ¶ 0031 "The sensor unit 110 may include a plurality of sensors to detect the presence and position of a pedestrian and a vehicle that are approaching parked vehicles located at a roadside" and ¶ 0037 "the sensing result may include GPS information about the position of the pedestrian, the position of each parked vehicle, and the position of the traveling vehicle"]
and in response to sensing an object around the subject vehicle, determining whether at least one of position and behavior of the sensed object satisfies a preset warning condition [Won ¶ 0068-0070 “In this way, if the pedestrian moves in a forward region of the parked vehicle 320-4, the transmitter may transmit a signal or information, which is needed to blink the sidewalk-nearby indicator light of the front parked vehicle 320-3, to the front parked vehicle 320-3.”]
outputting a warning to the selected warning target when the preset warning condition is satisfied [Won ¶ 0018 "The method may further include transmitting the position and moving speed of the pedestrian to the traveling vehicle, a front parked vehicle located in a forward region of the vehicle, or a rear parked vehicle located in a backward region of the vehicle."], wherein the outputting of a warning to an exterior comprises outputting a warning by controlling at least one of a mirror, a lighting device, or a horn of the subject vehicle [Won ¶ 0071 "In more detail, when the traveling vehicle approaches the pedestrian, the plurality of indicator lights mounted to the parked vehicles located in a forward region of the traveling vehicle may be simultaneously blinked such that the pedestrian can recognize the presence of the approaching traveling vehicle." and ¶ 0073 "If there is a high possibility of collision between the pedestrian and the traveling vehicle, the safety apparatus may warn the pedestrian of the approaching traveling vehicle by honking horns."].
Won does not teach based on a short-range wireless communication protocol that supports spatial positioning or direction recognition.
However, in a related field of invention, Orlando does teach sensing whether there is an object, which can be positioned, around a subject vehicle based on a short-range wireless communication protocol that supports spatial positioning or direction recognition [Orlando ¶ 0158 "In particular, an AoA UWB node 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e is a transceiver device capable of communicating with a UWB tag (installed on an obstacle B or on a second vehicle and/or operator) using ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. A UWB AoA node 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e uses the angle of arrival (AoA) method to determine the relative position of a UWB tag 3a relative to the UWB AoA node 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e."];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the GPS information as taught by Won with using ultra-wideband technology as taught by Orlando in order to more effectively locate objects around a vehicle.
Won and Orlando do not teach selecting at least one of an interior, an exterior, or a surrounding object as a warning target based on a relative position of the sensed object.
However, in a related field of invention, Stent does teach selecting at least one of an interior, an exterior, or a surrounding object as a warning target based on a relative position of the sensed object [Stent ¶ 0036-0037 “ the headlights 102 may be collimated beam headlights (e.g., laser headlights) that are configured to output lights in a focused manner and with high intensity such that the light that is output onto a desired road agent but not surrounding road agents.” And “the targeted warning may be instructions that enable a speaker to output an audio signal that is output by the speaker 218 of the vehicle 100 such that the audio signal may be targeted to a particular road agent.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the safety apparatus that uses ultra-wideband technology as taught by Won and Orlando with using targeted warnings based on a relative position as taught by Stent in order to more effectively warn the sensed object without interfering or affecting other surrounding road agents [Stent ¶ 0019].
Regarding claim 3, Won, Orlando, and Stent teach the method of claim 1. Won further teaches wherein the outputting of a warning to an interior comprises outputting a warning through at least one of a display or a sound device of the b vehicle [Won ¶ 0047 "In step S230, the safety apparatus may visually display the position, moving direction or moving speed of either the pedestrian or the traveling vehicle such that the external object can recognize the displayed information."].
Regarding claim 5, Won, Orlando, and Stent teach the method of claim 1. Won further teaches wherein the outputting of a warning to a surrounding object comprises transmitting a warning output request signal to at least one of the sensed objects, a surrounding vehicle, or a surrounding traffic light based on the communication protocol of the subject vehicle [Won ¶ 0018 "The method may further include transmitting the position and moving speed of the pedestrian to the traveling vehicle, a front parked vehicle located in a forward region of the vehicle, or a rear parked vehicle located in a backward region of the vehicle."].
Regarding claim 6, Won, Orlando, and Stent teach the method of claim 1. Orlando further teaches wherein the short-range wireless communication protocol comprises Ultra-Wide Band (UWB) [Orlando ¶ 0120-0121 "UWB can be used to determine positioning by using the time difference of arrival (“TDOA”) of the RF signals to obtain the distance between the reference point and the obstacle or using a precise measurement of the distance using the two-way ranging technique (“TWR”)."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the GPS information as taught by Won with using ultra-wideband technology as taught by Orlando in order to more effectively locate objects around a vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Won, Orlando, and Stent teach the method of claim 6. Orlando further wherein the object has a UWB tag and the subject vehicle has one or more UWB anchors [Orlando ¶ 0158 "In particular, an AoA UWB node 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e is a transceiver device capable of communicating with a UWB tag (installed on an obstacle B or on a second vehicle and/or operator) using ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. A UWB AoA node 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e uses the angle of arrival (AoA) method to determine the relative position of a UWB tag 3a relative to the UWB AoA node 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the GPS information as taught by Won with using ultra-wideband technology as taught by Orlando in order to more effectively locate objects around a vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Won, Orlando, and Stent teach the method of claim 1. Won further teaches wherein the preset warning condition is satisfied in at least one case of in response that the object moves from a preset safety area around the subject vehicle toward a preset danger area around the subject vehicle, in response that the object is in the danger area, or in response that the object moves toward a lane from the danger area [Won ¶ 0013 "The transmitter may transmit a signal or information for blinking the roadway-nearby indicator light when the pedestrian moves toward the roadway."].
Regarding claim 10, Won, Orlando, and Stent teach the method of claim 1. Won further teaches further comprising instructing the subject vehicle to brake in response that the preset warning condition is satisfied [Won ¶ 0079 "If there is a high possibility of collision between the pedestrian and the vehicle X, … may operate an autonomous braking device in a manner that the vehicle X can be automatically stopped without intervention of the driver who drives the vehicle X."].
Regarding claims 11, 13, 15-17 and 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9. The method taught/disclosed in claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9 can clearly perform on the system of claims 11, 13, 15-17 and 19. Therefore, claims 11, 13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Won and Orlando teach the vehicle of claim 11. Won further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to sense the object in response that the vehicle is in stop or park and determine whether the preset warning condition is satisfied for the sensed object [Won ¶ 0048 "The technical idea of the present disclosure may effectively operate in an exemplary situation (hereinafter referred to as a first situation) in which a driver exited a parked vehicle"].
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won in view of Orlando in view of Stent and in further view of Murayama (JP 2020077201).
Regarding claim 8: Won, Orlando, and Stent teach the method of claim 1. Won, Orlando, and Stent do not teach wherein the sensing further comprises: determining priority in accordance with a preset reference based on position and behavior of a plurality of objects in response that the plurality of objects is sensed; and determining whether the preset warning condition is satisfied based on an object having highest priority.
However, in a related field of invention, Murayama does teach wherein the sensing further comprises: determining priority in accordance with a preset reference based on position and behavior of a plurality of objects in response that the plurality of objects is sensed; and determining whether the preset warning condition is satisfied based on an object having highest priority [Murayama ¶ 0027 "The risk determination data DK is data in a table format that enables the degree of contact risk to be determined depending on whether or not the mobile objects 30, 40 are present in the first area A and the second area B adjacent to each contact area X." and ¶ 0034 "Specifically, when the highest contact risk level is value 2, the alarm unit 23 executes a process of emitting an alarm sound 2 for the pedestrian 30 and a process of activating the turn indicator 15 and the horn 16 for the vehicle 40."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine vehicle safety apparatus using ultra-wideband as taught by Won, Orlando, and Stent with using risk prioritization logic as taught by Murayama in order to more effectively determine when to admit a warning.
Regarding claim 18, Won, Orlando, and Stent teach the vehicle of claim 17. Won, Orlando, and Stent do not teach wherein in response that a plurality of objects is sensed, the controller is further configured to determine priority in accordance with a preset reference based on position and behavior of each of the plurality of objects and determine whether the preset warning condition is satisfied based on an object having highest priority.
However, in a related field of invention, Murayama does teach wherein in response that a plurality of objects is sensed, the controller is further configured to determine priority in accordance with a preset reference based on position and behavior of each of the plurality of objects and determine whether the preset warning condition is satisfied based on an object having highest priority [Murayama ¶ 0027 "The risk determination data DK is data in a table format that enables the degree of contact risk to be determined depending on whether or not the mobile objects 30, 40 are present in the first area A and the second area B adjacent to each contact area X." and ¶ 0034 "Specifically, when the highest contact risk level is value 2, the alarm unit 23 executes a process of emitting an alarm sound 2 for the pedestrian 30 and a process of activating the turn indicator 15 and the horn 16 for the vehicle 40."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine vehicle safety apparatus using ultra-wideband as taught by Won, Orlando, and Stent with using risk prioritization logic as taught by Murayama in order to more effectively determine when to admit a warning.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights