DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 9/17/2024, with claims 1-12 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/17/2024 and 2/25/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 3 at line 5 recites “the storage stores the control information”; however, it should read -- the storage that stores the control information.
claim 4 at line 4 recites “the storage stores the control information”; however, it should read -- the storage that stores the control information.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Such claim limitations are:
“a zone identification part” (see claim 1, 6, and 7; see [0024] of the specification teaches that a zone identification part is a function of controller 62. Thus, a zone identification part is an software instruction.);
“an avoidance control part” (see claims 1-4, 7, 10 and 12; see [0024] of the specification teaches that an avoidance control part is a function of controller 62. Thus, an avoidance control part is an software instruction.);
“a type identification part” (see claim 9; see [0024] of the specification teaches that a type identification part is a function of controller 62. Thus, a type identification part is an software instruction.);
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 3-6 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 claim(s) contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The broader term of determination part is not taught in specification. Instead, the specification teaches a narrower term of a speed rank determination part 622 as illustrated in at least figure two. Here the specification teaches that a speed rank determination part is a function of controller 62, see [0024].
The broader term of estimation part is not taught in specification. Instead, the specification teaches a narrower term of a TTC estimation part 624 as illustrated in at least figure two. Here the specification teaches that an avoidance TTC estimation part 624 is a function of the controller 62, see [0024].
See MPEP 2163.03(V) which recites “[w]hile there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)”.
As for the instant application, a broad genus claim term of “determination part” and “estimation part” are presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that theses genus are contemplated.
Appropriate correction is required. No new matter.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hillman, US 2019/0135278.
Claims 1, 11 and 12. Hillman teaches a driving assistance apparatus comprising:
a storage that stores control information in which i) each of a plurality of risk ranks indicating a risk of a collision between a reversing vehicle that is reversing and a moving object and ii) avoidance control enabling avoidance of a collision between the reversing vehicle and the moving object are associated with each other (see at least [0051] along with [0071]-[0075], [0007] and [0018] which reads on this element as such—“Additionally or alternatively, the data may be available on a memory storage means…which may form part of the controller…The type of warning or control signal provided may be determined and presented in a chart such as the chart 200 in FIG. 2. In FIG. 2, the type of control signal 205 provided can be seen for a specific warning zone length 120 and a reversing velocity of the first vehicle 105….The controller and method described herein may be adopted for any feature intended to provide information such as a warning or autonomous emergency braking, in forward or reverse motion of a vehicle….In some embodiments, the output may be configured to output a control signal comprising instructions for activating a braking system in dependence on the time to collision being less than or equal to the predetermined threshold time. An advantage of this feature is that a braking system is automatically activated when a collision risk is detected, and so it does not require any additional input by the driver in order to prevent collision.” Taken together the cited section read on this element. Here chart 200 in fig. 2 illustrates a plurality of risk ranks indicating a risk of a collision between a reversing vehicle that is reversing and a moving object);
a zone identification part that identifies an entry zone that a moving object present around the reversing vehicle enters from among a plurality of zones set along an estimated path of the reversing vehicle (Taken together [0052]-[0058] and [0062]-[0063] reads on this element as such—“The controller 110 may further comprise a processor configured to define a length 120 of a warning zone 115 in dependence on the velocity of the first vehicle 105….The length 120 of the warning zone 115 may vary within a range of values, and/or the length 120 may be limited to a calibratable maximum threshold value and/or a calibratable minimum threshold value. The or each threshold value may be programmed at the start of use of the system, or may be adjustable in use once the system has been operated for a while and has 'learnt' what appropriate threshold values may be. In certain embodiments, the maximum threshold value may be in the region of 6 metres, or slightly less or slightly more….In certain embodiments, tl1e warning zone may adopt different shapes and sizes, and the processor of the
controller may be configured to define different dimensions of the warning zone….”); and
an avoidance control part that causes the reversing vehicle to execute avoidance control associated with a risk rank corresponding to the identified entry zone, on the basis of the control information ([0006] along with [0018] reads on this element as such—“[t]he controller also comprise a processor configured to define a warning zone in dependence on the first vehicle data and to determine, in dependence on the target object data and the warning zone, a collision indicator. The controller further comprises an …the output may be configured to output a control signal comprising instructions for activating a braking system in dependence on the time to collision being less than or equal to the predetermined threshold time. An advantage of this feature is that a braking system is automatically activated when a collision risk is detected, and so it does not require any additional input by the driver in order to prevent collision.” While fig. 1 along with at least fig. 7 and 8 further illustrates this element.).
Claim 2. Hillman teaches the driving assistance apparatus according to claim and further teaches,
wherein the plurality of the zones are assigned with the risk ranks being higher as a distance between the zone and the reversing vehicle is shorter (fig. 2 illustrates a plurality zone based on length (i.e. distance) for at least vehicles approaching behind the own vehicle. As see figs. 3-5 which illustrates an approaching vehicle), and
the avoidance control part causes the reversing vehicle to execute the avoidance control associated with the risk rank assigned to the zone identified as the entry zone from among the plurality of the zones, by referring to the control information ([0018] reads on this element as such—“…the output may be configured to output a control signal comprising instructions for activating a braking system in dependence on the time to collision being less than or equal to the predetermined threshold time. An advantage of this feature is that a braking system is automatically activated when a collision risk is detected, and so it does not require any additional input by the driver in order to prevent collision.” While fig. 1 along with at least fig. 7 and 8 further illustrates this element. Also, the rationales and rejections of claim 1 is incorporated herein.).
Claim 3. Hillman teaches the driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1 and further teaches, comprising:
a determination part that determines a speed rank corresponding to speed of the moving object determined on the basis of i) speed of the reversing vehicle and ii) a relative speed of the moving object with respect to the reversing vehicle ([0060] reads on element i and ii as such—“the warning zone is thus optimised in dependence on vehicle speed. The level of detail and complexity in the determination of the warning zone may be varied. More complex approaches may allow more accurate modelling of various scenarios”),
wherein the storage stores the control information in which i) each of the plurality of risk ranks, ii) each of a plurality of speed ranks corresponding to speed of the moving object, and iii) the avoidance control are associated with each other, and the avoidance control part causes the reversing vehicle to execute avoidance control associated with the risk rank of the entry zone and the speed rank ([0061] reads on element i, ii, iii of this element as such—“Equation (1)…. may be adapted to be dependent on other factors of the first vehicle 105 such as acceleration, jerk or jounce, as well as position and velocity of the first vehicle. As an example, if the first vehicle 105 is accelerating in reverse compared with driving at a constant velocity, the distance travelled during the reaction time would be higher, and the braking distance would increase as the velocity of the first vehicle 105 would be higher by the
time braking commences”. Also, the rationales and rejections of claim 1 is incorporated herein.).
Claim 4. Hillman teaches the driving assistance apparatus according to claim 3 and further teaches, comprising:
an estimation part that estimates a time until collision between the reversing vehicle and the moving object (fig. 8 illustrates an estimated time to collision process),
wherein the storage stores the control information in which i) each of the plurality of risk ranks, ii) each of a plurality of speed ranks according to speed of the moving object, iii) each of a plurality of levels according to the time until collision ([0061] reads on element i, ii, iii of this element as such—“Equation (1)…. may be adapted to be dependent on other factors of the first vehicle 105 such as acceleration, jerk or jounce, as well as position and velocity of the first vehicle. As an example, if the first vehicle 105 is accelerating in reverse compared with driving at a constant velocity, the distance travelled during the reaction time would be higher, and the braking distance would increase as the velocity of the first vehicle 105 would be higher by the time braking commences”.), and
iv) the avoidance control are associated with each other, the estimation part estimates, as the time until collision ([0064]-[0068] reads on this element as such—“ the processor may be configured to define a threshold time to collision of the first vehicle with the projected path of the second vehicle.”),
a time determined on the basis of i) a distance between an intersection position where an estimated path of the reversing vehicle and an estimated path of the moving object intersect each other and a position of the reversing vehicle and ii) speed of the reversing vehicle, and the avoidance control part causes the reversing vehicle to execute avoidance control associated with a level corresponding to the risk rank of the entry zone, the speed rank, and the estimated time until collision ([0069] further reads on this claim and i and ii of this element as such—“the control signal may comprise instructions for activating a braking system in dependence on the time to collision being less than or equal to the predetermined threshold time. The braking system may be applied when, for example, a first vehicle is reversing towards rear cross traffic….” Also, the rationales and rejections of claim 1 is incorporated herein.).
Claim 5. Hillman teaches the driving assistance apparatus according to claim 3 and further teaches, wherein the speed rank is associated with each of a plurality of speed ranges, and the determination part determines a speed rank associated with the speed range including speed of the moving object as a speed rank of the moving object (Fig. 2 ranks the speed while [0061] reads on this element as such—“Equation (1)…. may be adapted to be dependent on other factors of the first vehicle 105 such as acceleration, jerk or jounce, as well as position and velocity of the first vehicle. As an example, if the first vehicle 105 is accelerating in reverse compared with driving at a constant velocity, the distance travelled during the reaction time would be higher, and the braking distance would increase as the velocity of the first vehicle 105 would be higher by the time braking commences”.).
Claim 6. Hillman teaches the driving assistance apparatus according to claim 3 and further teaches, wherein
the zone identification part identifies a zone in which an estimated path of the moving object is included from among the plurality of zones as the entry zone of the moving object (fig. 1 at least illustrates a warning zone and the time to collision path of the moving object, while [0068]-[0069] and [0073] teaches the time to collision of the projected path for the second vehicle into the warning zone, [0060] considers a plurality of zones as such—“[t]he level of detail and complexity in the determination of the warning zone may be varied. More complex approaches may allow more accurate modelling of various scenarios.” Also, fig. 2 teaches a plurality warning zones based on the length for cross traffic detection vs. reversing host vehicles. Thus, the cited section taken together reads on this element. ), and
the determination part determines the speed rank of a moving object for which the entry zone has been identified ([0078] read on this element as such—“[o]nce the length of the warning zone has been determined, a time to collision for the target object is determined at step 815 in dependence on the velocity of the second vehicle and the distance between the second vehicle and the warning zone.”), and
does not determine the speed rank of a moving object for which the entry area has not been identified ([0072]-[0075] reads on this element as such—“…in order to avoid a warning being outputted for vehicles with no collision risk, the time to collision may increase as a function of velocity of the first vehicle up to a maximum time to collision after which it may remain at a constant value. This may be useful, for example, to avoid a warning for a collision risk with vehicles that are too far behind the first vehicle to be a collision risk or vehicles in a separate lane. The time to collision may thus be limited to a constant value which may vary as a function of velocity of the first vehicle so that the maximum warning zone length remains constant….In the calculation of the length of the warning zone or the time to collision, the deceleration rate may vary as a function of the velocity of the first vehicle.”).
Claim 8. Hillman teaches the driving assistance apparatus according to claim 7 and further teaches, wherein the plurality of avoidance controls include:
braking control that is control for generating braking force to the reversing vehicle enabling avoidance of a collision between the reversing vehicle and the moving object, and that has a highest priority ([0065] describe a scenario that reads on this element as such—“The braking time may be defined as the time required to bring the vehicle to a halt using a comfortable deceleration rate, that is a deceleration rate that does not place the passengers of the vehicle at a safety risk. A reasonable threshold between comfortable braking and emergency braking may be approximately 4 ms-2 . It is to be understood that this threshold, and thus the comfortable deceleration rate, may vary in dependence on one or more properties of the vehicle or preference of the vehicle occupants.”),
alert control that is control for outputting an alert sound notifying that the moving object is approaching the reversing vehicle, and that has a lowest priority, and warning control that is control for outputting a warning sound for notifying of an impending collision between the reversing vehicle and the moving object, and that has a priority between the highest priority and the lowest priority ([0059] reads on this element as such— “The controller 110 may further comprise an output arranged to output a control signal to a vehicle system, such as an audio system or an infotainment system, in dependence on the time to collision of the second vehicle being less than the predetermined threshold time to collision for the second vehicle. The control signal may be an audial signal through, for example, the speaker system of the vehicle, a visual signal provided via a screen on the dashboard of the vehicle, or a haptic signal provided through the steering wheel. In some embodiments, a combination the above control signals may be used. The control signal provides a collision warning to the driver or any of the other vehicle occupants of the first vehicle and thus enables the driver to control the vehicle appropriately, for example by placing their foot on the brake pedal or by steering in a different direction, in order to prevent collision with the second vehicle 125.”).
Claim 9. Hillman teaches the driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1 and teaches further, comprising: a type identification part that identifies a type of the moving object ([0003] describe identifying another moving object proximal to the own vehicle which read on this element), wherein the avoidance control part causes the reversing vehicle to execute the avoidance control associated with a risk rank of the entry zone and a type of the moving object, by referring to the control information in which a type of the moving object is associated with the avoidance control ([0006] along with [0018] reads on this element as such—“[t]he controller also comprise a processor configured to define a warning zone in dependence on the first vehicle data and to determine, in dependence on the target object data and the warning zone, a collision indicator. The controller further comprises an …the output may be configured to output a control signal comprising instructions for activating a braking system in dependence on the time to collision being less than or equal to the predetermined threshold time. An advantage of this feature is that a braking system is automatically activated when a collision risk is detected, and so it does not require any additional input by the driver in order to prevent collision.” While fig. 1 along with at least fig. 7 and 8 further illustrates this element. [0061] further reads on element as such—As an example, if the first vehicle 105 is accelerating in reverse compared with driving at a constant velocity, the distance travelled during the reaction time would be higher, and the braking distance would increase as the velocity of the first vehicle 105 would be higher by the time braking commences”. Taken the cited section together reads on this element. Also, the rationales and rejections of claim 1 is incorporated herein.).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman in view of Takahashi et al., US 2014/0028451 hereinafter “Takahashi”.
Claim 7. Hillman teaches the driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
a priority is assigned to each of the plurality of avoidance controls of the control information ([0061] describes scenario of this element as such—“… if the first vehicle 105 is accelerating in reverse compared with driving at a constant velocity, the distance travelled during the reaction time would be higher, and the braking distance would increase as the velocity of the first vehicle 105 would be higher by the time braking commences”), and
the avoidance control part causes the reversing vehicle to execute avoidance control having the highest priority among a plurality of the avoidance controls associated with a risk rank of the entry zone of each moving object ([0006] along with [0018] reads on this element as such—“[t]he controller also comprise a processor configured to define a warning zone in dependence on the first vehicle data and to determine, in dependence on the target object data and the warning zone, a collision indicator. The controller further comprises an …the output may be configured to output a control signal comprising instructions for activating a braking system in dependence on the time to collision being less than or equal to the predetermined threshold time. An advantage of this feature is that a braking system is automatically activated when a collision risk is detected, and so it does not require any additional input by the driver in order to prevent collision.” While fig. 1 along with at least fig. 7 and 8 further illustrates this element.).
Hillman teaches at least one vehicle on a roadway moving behind the own vehicle in reverse; however, Hillman is silent on illustrating two vehicles moving behind the own vehicle.
Yet, Takahashi teaches the zone identification part identifies an entry zone that each of a plurality of the moving objects around the reversing vehicle enters (See at least fig. 7 which best illustrates a plurality of moving vehicle behind the own vehicle in travelling in reverse),
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine the Takahashi teaching with the Hillman system because such combination would provide position and a movement direction of another vehicle behind the vehicle (see [0012], Takahashi).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman in view of Nagata et al., US 2020/0331469 hereinafter “Nagata”.
Claim 10. Hillman teaches the driving assistance apparatus according to claim 9,
wherein the risk rank is associated with i) a vehicle and a pedestrian as a type of the
moving object (figs. 2-6 best illustrates risk areas as it relates to the vehicle, [0036] and [0051] teaches recognizing a pedestrian and a vehicle,) and ii) avoidance control corresponding to the vehicle and avoidance control corresponding to the pedestrian, the type identification part identifies whether a type of the moving object is a vehicle or a pedestrian ([0037]-[0044] reads on this element as such—“The danger avoidance system calculation unit 20 determines whether to operate a danger avoidance system. When determination is made that danger of the collision between the object in front of the host vehicle and the host vehicle occurs, the danger avoidance system operates the braking actuator 6 and the steering actuator 7 to avoid the danger of the collision”), and
the avoidance control part causes the reversing vehicle to execute: avoidance control associated with an identified risk rank of the entry zone and the vehicle if a type of the moving object is identified to be a vehicle, and avoidance control associated with an identified risk rank of the entry zone and the pedestrian if a type of the moving object is identified to be a pedestrian ([0057]-[0060] reads on this element as such—“Two pedestrians 60A, 60B recognized by the object recognition unit 12 are drawn in FIG. 5. Here, solely the pedestrian 60A is assumed to enter the target area 70 of the danger avoidance system. In the case, the vehicle control device 10 decreases the TTC threshold value for PCS from the value 121 to the value 122 and reduces the target area of the PCS from the area 80 to the area 81 simultaneously operating the danger avoidance system with the pedestrian 60A as the target”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine the Nagata’s pedestrian detecting teaching with Hillman’s reverse driving vehicle system because such combination would provide a driving assistance for collision avoidance of a target object (see [0008], Nagata).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 - 5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/A.D.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661