Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, the words “where the self-vehicle and the surrounding vehicle intersect, as a new intersection location, …” should be rewritten as “where the self-vehicle and the surrounding vehicle intersect, at a new intersection location, …”.
The foregoing changes are required to correct clerical and/or grammatical errors.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a driving assistance device which is in the machines category of the four statutory categories. The claim as drafted, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the recited limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic components such as a storage unit, an acquisition unit, a prediction unit, and an assistance unit. The steps may be described as mere data gathering and/or data collection, in conjunction with mental process or an abstract idea.
But for the recitation of a storage unit, the step of storing a plurality of intersection locations each indicating a location where a traveling trajectory of a self-vehicle and a traveling trajectory of another vehicle intersect with each other in a past, amounts to mere data gathering. The storing of the intersection locations may be considered data gathering and corresponds to the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP at 2106.05(g)). Examiner notes that the data gathering corresponds to pre-solution activity for use in the steps performed by the claimed device.
But for the recitation of an acquisition unit, the step of acquiring surrounding vehicle information including a current location, a speed, and a traveling trajectory of a surrounding vehicle present around the self-vehicle, from the surrounding vehicle, through vehicle-to-vehicle communication also amounts to mere data gathering. The location, speed, and traveling trajectory of a surrounding vehicle around his vehicle is obtained by way of using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications. The data gathering or data acquisition step, which may correspond to pre-solution activity, also corresponds to the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP at 2106.05(g)).
But for the recitation of a prediction unit, the step of predicting a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the surrounding vehicle in a target area in front of the self-vehicle based on self-vehicle information including a current location, a speed, and a traveling trajectory of the self-vehicle and the acquired surrounding vehicle information may be performed in the human mind and corresponds to an abstract idea. The foregoing step is equivalent to a person making a prediction regarding the possibility of a collision between his vehicle and a surrounding vehicle in an area in front of his field of view based on the data that has been gathered.
But for the recitation of an assistance unit, the step of performing driving assistance for the self-vehicle, which includes at least one of notification to an occupant of the self-vehicle and deceleration assistance for the self-vehicle (Examiner notes that the “at least one of” clause presents limitations claimed in the alternative.), based on a prediction result of the prediction unit, wherein the prediction unit predicts, in a case where none of the plurality of intersection locations stored in the storage unit is present within a predetermined distance in front of the self-vehicle, the possibility of collision is predicted by setting the target area to a first area, and predicts, in a case where at least one of the plurality of intersection locations is present within the predetermined distance, the possibility of collision by setting the target area to a second area larger than the first area, may correspond to providing a mere notification to an occupant of the self-vehicle. The notification may, for example, be a reminder, alert, or message to the occupant. The notification to the occupant corresponds to the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP at 2106.05(g)), in which the extra-solution activity is in the form of post-solution activity.
The mere nominal recitation of generic components such as a storage unit, an acquisition unit, a prediction unit, and an assistance unit, does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. The claim limitations do not require any particular level of accuracy or precision, so nothing in the claim elements preclude the recited steps from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of the limitations are recited at a high level of generality. There is nothing implemented to technologically improve the functionality of what is recited in claim 1. The judicial exception does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. The limitations of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In summary, with respect to the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106), independent claim 1 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention which satisfies STEP 1 (i.e., a machine). Claim 1 covers performance of one or more limitations in the human mind which constitutes a mental process, which may include an estimation, identification, observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, for example. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea which satisfies STEP 2A (Prong 1). Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application which does not satisfy STEP 2A (Prong 2). Furthermore, with regard to STEP 2B, claim 1 the absence of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The mere recitation of generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited steps correspond to well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept is not present.
Since claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations of a mental process, without integrating the limitations into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more, it is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims fall into the mental processes grouping as each of them depends on independent claim 1 and the additional limitations recited in each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the dependent claims may include “generally linking” claims, such as claim 11, for example, which links the abstract idea presented in independent claim 1 to a conventional or generic device, such a claim adds nothing more than what is conventional and previously known to the industry and comprises nothing more than insignificant post-solution activity.
Independent claim 14 includes the same limitations as recited in the driving assistance device of claim 1, except it claims a method which is the same as the steps recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner rejects claim 14 for the same reasons the Examiner rejects claim 1 stated above. Examiner directs the Applicant to the reasons as stated above for the rejection of claim 1 because claim 14 covers the same steps recited in claim 1.
Independent claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that executes a method that includes or is the same as the steps recited in the driving assistance device of claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner rejects claim 15 for the same reasons the Examiner rejects claim 1 stated above. Examiner directs the Applicant to the reasons as stated above for the rejection of claim 1 because claim 15 covers the same steps recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the prediction unit predicts, …., the possibility of collision by setting the target area to a first area, …”. Claim 1 further recites “wherein the prediction unit predicts, …., the possibility of collision by setting the target area to a second area larger than the first area.” It is unclear how a possibility of collision is predicted by setting a target area to a first or a second area. The claim fails to interrelate how the possibility of a collision is predicted by setting a target area. Therefore, it is unclear what the claim is directed to. Examiner will assume, for the sake of examination, that a size of an area somehow affects a prediction of the possibility of collision. Likewise, for the same reasons Independent claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because each of these claims fails to interrelate how the possibility of a collision is predicted by setting a target area.
Each of claims 1-2 and 6 recites “another vehicle” and a number of recitations of “surrounding vehicle”. It is unclear whether the term “another vehicle” is the same as the term “surrounding vehicle”. As such, there appears to be a number of antecedent basis issues. For the sake of examination, the Examiner will interpret another vehicle to be the same as surrounding vehicle. Examiner recommends that the Applicant amend the claims to recite only instances of one or the other term and to obviate any antecedent basis issues.
Appropriate amendments are required to correct the foregoing issues. Applicant is requested to provide support from the specification for any amendments made. No new matter should be added. The Examiner reserves the right to update an examination of the merits of the above claims at a future date after appropriate amendments are made by the Applicant.
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 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 1-2, 11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara (US 2022/0289178) in view of Ando et al. (JP 2017091502 A) (English language translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Hagiwara teaches a driving assistance device, comprising: a storage unit configured to store a plurality of intersection locations each indicating a location where a traveling trajectory of a self-vehicle and a traveling trajectory of another vehicle intersect with each other in a past; (see Hagiwara at the Abstract which discloses that a specifying unit specifies an intersection position between the travel trajectory of the other vehicle and a travel trajectory of a self-vehicle; see Hagiwara at [0004] which discloses a driving assistance device; see Hagiwara at [0033] which discloses that the control device 10 is, for example, an electronic control unit (ECU), and functions as a driving assistance device that performs a driving assistance control. Also, see Hagiwara at [0030] which discloses that the control device 20 includes a processing unit 21 and a storage unit 22. See Hagiwara at [0035-0036] which discloses that an intersection position database (DB) 1021 and a monitoring region DB 1022 are constructed as databases for performing driving assistance in the storage unit 102 and that the intersection position DB 1021 stores information regarding an intersection position registered by processing to be described later and that in the present embodiment, the intersection position database (DB) 1021 stores an intersection position ID, a registration date and time, position information, and an entry azimuth in association with each other for each intersection position. Examiner notes that storing intersection position database including position information into a storage unit corresponds to storing a plurality of intersection locations each indicating a location where a traveling trajectory of a self-vehicle and a traveling trajectory of another vehicle intersect with each other in a past.)
an acquisition unit configured to acquire surrounding vehicle information including a current location, a speed, and a traveling trajectory of a surrounding vehicle present around the self-vehicle, from the surrounding vehicle, through vehicle-to-vehicle communication; (see Hagiwara at [0004] which discloses that the acquisition unit acquires the data from another vehicle traveling in the monitoring region in a state in which the monitoring region is set, whether or not to update the monitoring region based on a result of comparison between first data that is the data used to set the monitoring region and second data that is the data acquired from the other vehicle traveling in the monitoring region; see Hagiwara at [0043] which discloses that the sensor group 11 can include an outside detection sensor such as a camera capable of detecting an object around the vehicle 1, a millimeter wave radar, or a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) and that the sensor group 11 outputs a detection result to the control device 10; see Hagiwara at [0059] which discloses that the processing unit 101 determines a possibility of a collision between the vehicle 1 and the vehicle 9 based on information such as the position and speed of the vehicle 1, which is the self-vehicle, and the position and speed of the vehicle 9, which is another vehicle. Examiner notes that acquisition unit may comprise the outside detection sensor, such as a camera, for example. Further, see Hagiwara at Fig. 1 which depicts a vehicle-to-vehicle communication antenna to facilitate vehicle-to-vehicle communication; see Hagiwara at [0132] which discloses an acquisition unit (101, S10) configured to acquire data regarding a travel trajectory of another vehicle from the other vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication.)
a prediction unit configured to predict a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the surrounding vehicle in a target area in front of the self-vehicle based on self-vehicle information including a current location, a speed, and a traveling trajectory of the self-vehicle and the surrounding vehicle information acquired by the acquisition unit; (see Hagiwara at [0045] which discloses a notification device 14 includes a display unit such as a display, and makes a notification for the occupant by displaying information such as a possibility of a collision with another vehicle on the display unit. Also, as previously cited, see Hagiwara at [0059] which discloses that the processing unit 101 determines a possibility of a collision between the vehicle 1 and the vehicle 9 based on information such as the position and speed of the vehicle 1, which is the self-vehicle, and the position and speed of the vehicle 9, which is another vehicle; see Hagiwara at [0047] which discloses that the control device 10 specifies the intersection position where a travel trajectory of the vehicle 1, which is the self-vehicle, and the travel trajectory of another vehicle intersect, and sets the monitoring region based on the specified intersection position; Examiner maps monitoring region to the recited target area. Also, see Hagiwara at [0062] in connection with Fig. 5 which depicts recognizing travel trajectories and that the processing unit 101 acquires data D1, which is data of another vehicle, and that furthermore, the processing unit 101 acquires data regarding the travel trajectory of another vehicle from the other vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication.)
and an assistance unit configured to perform driving assistance for the self-vehicle, which includes at least one of notification to an occupant of the self-vehicle and deceleration assistance for the self-vehicle, based on a prediction result of the prediction unit, (see Hagiwara at [0045] which discloses a notification device 14 includes a display unit such as a display, and makes a notification for the occupant by displaying information such as a possibility of a collision with another vehicle on the display unit. Examiner previously noted that the processing unit may be mapped to the prediction unit. Examiner maps the information displayed to the prediction result.)
Hagiwara teaches in a case where at least one of the plurality of intersection locations stored in the storage unit is present within the predetermined distance, (see Hagiwara at [0056] which discloses that the processing unit 101 searches for a registered intersection position within a predetermined range from the vehicle 1 based on the current position of the vehicle 1 acquired by the GPS module 1031 and position information regarding the intersection position registered in the intersection position DB 1021, and that in the situation illustrated in FIG. 4B, the processing unit 101 searches for an intersection position that is registered in the intersection position DB 1021 and that is within a search range R in front of or on the side of the vehicle 1.)
Hagiwara does not expressly disclose wherein the prediction unit predicts, in a case where none of the plurality of intersection locations stored in the storage unit is present within a predetermined distance in front of the self-vehicle, the possibility of collision by setting the target area to a first area, and predicts, [in a case where at least one of the plurality of intersection locations stored in the storage unit is present within the predetermined distance,] the possibility of collision by setting the target area to a second area larger than the first area which in a related art, Ando teaches (see Ando at the Abstract which discloses providing a drive support device to judge whether a possibility of collision of vehicles is high or not, and that the problem to be solved comprises providing prediction unit (S3) which predicts an own vehicle prediction trajectory from the current location of the own vehicle and an advancing azimuth of the own vehicle and a surrounding vehicle prediction unit (S6) that acquires a current location of a surrounding vehicle to be determined based on the navigation signal, and an advancing azimuth of the surrounding vehicle, so as to predict a surrounding vehicle prediction trajectory. Examiner notes that one or more of prediction units S3, S6 may correspond to the recited prediction unit. Ando at the Abstract discloses that an area setting unit (S8) that, when a crossing point is present in the own vehicle prediction trajectory and surrounding vehicle prediction trajectory, sets up a judgement area so as to include the crossing point; and a judgement unit whether a crossing point node is present in the judgement area. Examiner notes that the foregoing scenario corresponds to a case where at least one of the plurality of intersection locations (i.e., the crossing point) is present within the predetermined distance. Ando at the Abstract further discloses that when the crossing point node is not present in the judgement area, a drive support level is configured to be a lower level at which a drive support is suppressed than that when the crossing point node is present in the judgement area. Examiner notes that setting up a judgement area to include the crossing point corresponds to setting the target area to a second area larger than a first area without the crossing point. Examiner has shown a teaching based on broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hagiwara to include wherein the prediction unit predicts, in a case where none of the plurality of intersection locations stored in the storage unit is present within a predetermined distance in front of the self-vehicle, the possibility of collision by setting the target area to a first area, and predicts, in a case where at least one of the plurality of intersection locations stored in the storage unit is present within the predetermined distance, the possibility of collision by setting the target area to a second area larger than the first area, as taught by Ando.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to determine a possibility of collision of an own vehicle and a surrounding vehicle by way of including a judgement area that includes a crossing point, as suggested by Ando at the Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the storage unit stores each of the plurality of intersection locations in association with the traveling trajectory of the another vehicle, and the prediction unit predicts, in a case where the at least one intersection location is present within the predetermined distance, the possibility of collision based on the traveling trajectory of the another vehicle stored in the storage unit in association with the at least one intersection location (see Ando at the Abstract which discloses providing a drive support device to judge whether a possibility of collision of vehicles is high or not; see Hagiwara at the Abstract which discloses that a specifying unit specifies an intersection position between the travel trajectory of the other vehicle and a travel trajectory of a self-vehicle; see Hagiwara at [0035-0036] which discloses that an intersection position database (DB) 1021 and a monitoring region DB 1022 are constructed as databases for performing driving assistance in the storage unit 102 and that the intersection position DB 1021 stores information regarding an intersection position registered by processing to be described later and that in the present embodiment, the intersection position database (DB) 1021 stores an intersection position ID, a registration date and time, position information, and an entry azimuth in association with each other for each intersection position. See Hagiwara at [0059] which discloses that the processing unit 101 performs driving assistance and that for example, the processing unit 101 determines a possibility of a collision between the vehicle 1 (self-vehicle) and the vehicle 9 (another vehicle) based on information such as the position and speed of the vehicle 1 and the position and speed of the vehicle 9. Examiner notes that the possibility of collision is performed based on position of the vehicles. Examiner notes that position corresponds to predetermined distance.)
Regarding claim 11, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, further comprising: a specifying unit configured to specify a location where the self-vehicle and the surrounding vehicle intersect, as a new intersection location, based on the self-vehicle information and the surrounding vehicle information; (see Hagiwara at [0004] which discloses that a specifying unit configured to specify an intersection position between the travel trajectory of the other vehicle and a travel trajectory of a self-vehicle based on the data acquired by the acquisition unit. Examiner notes that an intersection position corresponds to a specified location. Examiner notes that a travel trajectory of a self-vehicle corresponds to self-vehicle information while the travel trajectory of the other vehicle corresponds to the surrounding vehicle information.)
and a registration unit configured to register, in the storage unit, the new intersection location specified by the specifying unit (see Hagiwara at [0035] which discloses that in the present embodiment, an intersection position database (DB) 1021 and a monitoring region DB 1022 are constructed as databases for performing driving assistance in the storage unit 102; see Hagiwara at [0036] which discloses that FIG. 2A is a diagram illustrating a configuration example of the intersection position DB 1021, that the intersection position DB 1021 stores information regarding an intersection position registered by processing to be described later and that in the present embodiment, the intersection position DB 1021 stores an intersection position ID, a registration date and time, position information, and an entry azimuth in association with each other for each intersection position; see Hagiwara at [0055] in conjunction with Fig 2A which discloses that Fig. 4B is a diagram illustrating an example of a situation in which driving assistance of the vehicle 1 is performed and that a situation in which the vehicle 1 enters the intersection registered in the intersection position DB 1021 is illustrated; see Hagiwara at [0070] which discloses that in S14, the processing unit 101 registers information regarding the specified intersection position in the intersection position DB 1021 of the storage unit 102. Examiner maps the processing unit or portion of it to the registration unit.)
Regarding claim 13, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the second area is longer than the first area at least in a traveling direction of the self-vehicle (see Hagiwara at [0040] which discloses that the monitoring region ID is an identification number of each monitoring region, and in the present embodiment, since the monitoring region is set for the registered intersection position, the monitoring region DB 1022 also includes the intersection position ID of the intersection position corresponding to the monitoring region specified by the monitoring region ID. Also, see Ando at the Abstract which discloses providing a drive support device to judge whether a possibility of collision of vehicles is high or not, and that the problem to be solved comprises providing prediction unit (S3) which predicts an own vehicle prediction trajectory from the current location of the own vehicle and an advancing azimuth of the own vehicle and a surrounding vehicle prediction unit (S6) that acquires a current location of a surrounding vehicle to be determined based on the navigation signal, and an advancing azimuth of the surrounding vehicle, so as to predict a surrounding vehicle prediction trajectory. Examiner notes that one or more of prediction units S3, S6 may correspond to the recited prediction unit. Ando at the Abstract discloses that an area setting unit (S8) that, when a crossing point is present in the own vehicle prediction trajectory and surrounding vehicle prediction trajectory, sets up a judgement area so as to include the crossing point; and a judgement unit whether a crossing point node is present in the judgement area. Examiner notes that the foregoing scenario corresponds to a case where at least one of the plurality of intersection locations (i.e., the crossing point) is present within the predetermined distance. Ando at the Abstract further discloses that when the crossing point node is not present in the judgement area, a drive support level is configured to be a lower level at which a drive support is suppressed than that when the crossing point node is present in the judgement area. Given the width of a street is constant, the Examiner notes that setting up a judgement area to include the crossing point corresponds to setting the target area to a second area larger than a first area without the crossing point in which the length of the traveling direction is longer.)
Claim 14 is directed toward a method that performs the steps recited in the computing device of claim 1. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the steps recited in the method of claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15 is directed toward a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a driving assistance method recited in claim 1. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the steps recited in the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15. Therefore claims 15 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara (US 2022/0289178) in view of Ando et al. (JP 2017091502 A) (English language translation attached) and further in view of Kawasaki (JP 2024072009 A) (English language translation attached).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the prediction unit calculates, as an estimated intersection location, a location where a future traveling route of the surrounding vehicle estimated based on the surrounding vehicle information acquired by the acquisition unit and a future traveling route of the self-vehicle estimated based on the self-vehicle information intersect, (see Hagiwara at [0047] which discloses that the control device 10 specifies the intersection position where a travel trajectory of the vehicle 1, which is the self-vehicle, and the travel trajectory of another vehicle intersect, and sets the monitoring region based on the specified intersection position.)
and predicts an arrival time which is a time until the surrounding vehicle will arrive at the estimated intersection location, as the possibility of collision, and the assistance unit performs the driving assistance when the arrival time is equal to or less than a time threshold value, and does not perform the driving assistance when the arrival time is larger than the time threshold value which in a related art Kawasaki teaches (see Kawasaki at page 6 which discloses that the control unit 11 may calculate a first value TG, which is the difference between the first time Ta and the second time Tb, and determine that there is a possibility of a collision if the first value TG is less than a predetermined value, and determine that there is no possibility of a collision if the first value TG is equal to or greater than the predetermined value; further see Kawasaki at page 6 which discloses that the control unit 11 may calculate a second value TTC, which is a value obtained by subtracting the current time from the second time Tb, and decide to provide driving assistance if the second value TTC is less than a predetermined value required to avoid a collision and that the control unit 11 may decide not to provide driving assistance if the second value TTC is equal to or greater than the predetermined value required to avoid a collision, that the predetermined value required to avoid a collision may be set freely and that in this way, the control unit 11 decides to provide driving assistance to the driver of the vehicle 20 based on the result of the collision possibility judgment. Examiner notes that the predetermined value may be set freely based on judgment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hagiwara to include wherein the prediction unit predicts an arrival time which is a time until the surrounding vehicle will arrive at the estimated intersection location, as the possibility of collision, and the assistance unit performs the driving assistance when the arrival time is equal to or less than a time threshold value, and does not perform the driving assistance when the arrival time is larger than the time threshold value, as taught by Kawasaki.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide driving assistance to the driver of the vehicle 20 based on the result of the collision possibility judgment, as suggested by Kawasaki at page 6.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 3, wherein the assistance unit changes the time threshold value according to the speed of the surrounding vehicle in the surrounding vehicle information (see Kawasaki at page 6 which discloses that the predetermined value required to avoid a collision may be set freely; see Kawasaki at page 7 which discloses that the control unit 11 may diagnose the driving tendency by comparing the slowing speed, the deceleration, and the reaction time with the respective predetermined values. Examiner notes that the predetermined value may be adjusted freely based on slowing speed, for example.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 3, wherein the time threshold value is set by an occupant of the self-vehicle (see Kawasaki at page 6 which discloses that the predetermined value required to avoid a collision may be set freely; Examiner notes that setting the predetermined value freely corresponds to setting the time threshold value by an occupant of the self-vehicle.).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Harigawa teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the storage unit stores each of the plurality of intersection locations in association with the traveling trajectory of the another vehicle, (see Hagiwara at [0030] which discloses that the control device 20 includes a processing unit 21 and a storage unit 22. See Hagiwara at [0035-0036] which discloses that an intersection position database (DB) 1021 and a monitoring region DB 1022 are constructed as databases for performing driving assistance in the storage unit 102 and that the intersection position DB 1021 stores information regarding an intersection position registered by processing to be described later and that in the present embodiment, the intersection position database (DB) 1021 stores an intersection position ID, a registration date and time, position information, and an entry azimuth in association with each other for each intersection position. Examiner notes that storing intersection position database including position information into a storage unit corresponds to the storage unit stores each of the plurality of intersection locations in association with the traveling trajectory of the another vehicle.)
The modified Hagiwara further teaches the prediction unit calculates, in a case where the at least one intersection location is present within the predetermined distance, a distance between the at least one intersection location and the surrounding vehicle based on the traveling trajectory of the another vehicle stored in the storage unit in association with the at least one intersection location (see Hagiwara at [0004] which discloses a specifying unit configured to specify an intersection position between the travel trajectory of the other vehicle and a travel trajectory of a self-vehicle based on the data acquired by the acquisition unit; a setting unit configured to set, in a case where the intersection position is specifiable by the specifying unit, a region based on the intersection position and the travel trajectory of the other vehicle as a monitoring region when performing driving assistance; Examiner notes that a specifying unit that specifies an intersection position between the travel trajectory of the other vehicle and a travel trajectory of a self-vehicle corresponds to specifying a distance between the at least one intersection location and the surrounding vehicle.)
The modified Hagiwara does not expressly disclose [the prediction unit calculates, in a case where the at least one intersection location is present within the predetermined distance, a distance between the at least one intersection location and the surrounding vehicle based on the traveling trajectory of the another vehicle stored in the storage unit in association with the at least one intersection location,] and predicts an arrival time which is a time until the surrounding vehicle will arrive at the at least one intersection location, as the possibility of collision, based on the distance and the surrounding vehicle information, and the assistance unit performs the driving assistance when the arrival time is equal to or less than a time threshold value, and does not perform the driving assistance when the arrival time is larger than the time threshold value which in a related art Kawasaki teaches (see Kawasaki at page 5 which discloses that the positioning unit 26 outputs position information indicating the position of the vehicle 20 to the control unit 21; Examiner notes that position information corresponds to a distance between the at least one intersection location and the surrounding vehicle; see Kawasaki at page 6 which discloses that the control unit 11 may calculate a first value TG, which is the difference between the first time Ta and the second time Tb, and determine that there is a possibility of a collision if the first value TG is less than a predetermined value, and determine that there is no possibility of a collision if the first value TG is equal to or greater than the predetermined value; further see Kawasaki at page 6 which discloses that the control unit 11 may calculate a second value TTC, which is a value obtained by subtracting the current time from the second time Tb, and decide to provide driving assistance if the second value TTC is less than a predetermined value required to avoid a collision and that the control unit 11 may decide not to provide driving assistance if the second value TTC is equal to or greater than the predetermined value required to avoid a collision, that the predetermined value required to avoid a collision may be set freely and that in this way, the control unit 11 decides to provide driving assistance to the driver of the vehicle 20 based on the result of the collision possibility judgment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hagiwara to include predicting an arrival time which is a time until the surrounding vehicle will arrive at the at least one intersection location, as the possibility of collision, based on the distance and the surrounding vehicle information, and the assistance unit performs the driving assistance when the arrival time is equal to or less than a time threshold value, and does not perform the driving assistance when the arrival time is larger than the time threshold value, as taught by Kawasaki.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide driving assistance to the driver of the vehicle 20 based on the result of the collision possibility judgment, as suggested by Kawasaki at page 6.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 6, wherein the assistance unit changes the time threshold value according to the speed of the surrounding vehicle in the surrounding vehicle information (see Kawasaki at page 6 which discloses that the predetermined value required to avoid a collision may be set freely; see Kawasaki at page 7 which discloses that the control unit 11 may diagnose the driving tendency by comparing the slowing speed, the deceleration, and the reaction time with the respective predetermined values. Examiner notes that the predetermined value may be adjusted freely based on slowing speed, for example.)
Regarding claim 8, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 6, wherein the time threshold value is set by an occupant of the self-vehicle (see Kawasaki at page 6 which discloses that the predetermined value required to avoid a collision may be set freely; Examiner notes that setting the predetermined value freely corresponds to setting the time threshold value by an occupant of the self-vehicle.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara (US 2022/0289178) in view of Ando et al. (JP 2017091502 A) (English language translation attached) and further in view of Seto et al. (JP 2006184942 A).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the prediction unit calculates, as an estimated intersection location, a location where a future traveling route of the surrounding vehicle estimated based on the surrounding vehicle information acquired by the acquisition unit and a future traveling route of the self-vehicle estimated based on the self-vehicle information intersect, (see Hagiwara at [0047] which discloses that the control device 10 specifies the intersection position where a travel trajectory of the vehicle 1, which is the self-vehicle, and the travel trajectory of another vehicle intersect, and sets the monitoring region based on the specified intersection position.)
The modified Hagiwara further teaches and predicts a stop location when the surrounding vehicle decelerates at a predetermined deceleration from a current location, as the possibility of collision, (see Ando at page 1 which discloses an own vehicle prediction unit (S3) that predicts an own vehicle prediction trajectory from the current location of the own vehicle and an advancing azimuth of the own vehicle; a surrounding vehicle prediction unit (S6) that acquires a current location of a surrounding vehicle to be determined based on the navigation signal, and an advancing azimuth of the surrounding vehicle, so as to predict a surrounding vehicle prediction trajectory; see Ando at page 1 which discloses that a vehicle equipped with a driving assistance device performs mutual communication with other vehicles, and a vehicle equipped with a driving assistance device (hereinafter referred to as own vehicle) and the like based on road map information, that each predicted future vehicle position of the vehicle is predicted, and then, the predicted vehicle position of the host vehicle at a future time is compared with the predicted vehicle position of another vehicle at the future time. Examiner notes that the predicting vehicle trajectories of an own vehicle and of a surrounding vehicle includes predicting a stop location of a decelerating surrounding vehicle at a predetermined deceleration from a current location, which also includes a point of intersection or collision of the two vehicles.)
and the assistance unit performs the driving assistance when the stop location is ahead of the estimated intersection location in a traveling direction of the surrounding vehicle, and does not perform the driving assistance when the stop location is behind the estimated intersection location in the traveling direction of the surrounding vehicle (see Seto at page 6 which discloses that when the approaching vehicle stops before the intersection or decelerates to a predetermined extremely low speed range, it is determined that the approaching vehicle is willing to give way to the own vehicle, and the approaching vehicle gives way to the own vehicle and inform the driver that there is a will; see Seto at pages 6-7 which discloses that the driver is informed as to whether or not the vehicle can be advanced to a position where the vehicle can be seen as driving information for supporting the approach to the intersection, and the process proceeds to return, and that specifically, if the arrival time Ti to the intersection of the other vehicle calculated in step S5 in FIG. 2 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, it is determined that the host vehicle can be advanced to a position where it can be visually observed, and the driver is notified and if not, the driver is informed not to advance the car. Also, see Seto at page 9 which discloses that information providing means (step S713) provides, as driving information, whether or not the vehicle can advance to a position where the approaching vehicle can be seen when the information providing content that supports recognition of the approaching vehicle is selected. Therefore, it is possible to provide information that assists the driver in judging driving when the driver advances the vehicle to a position where the intersection can be seen. Examiner notes that providing information and/or informing the driver as to whether or not the vehicle can be advanced to a position corresponds to performing driving assistance. Examiner notes that providing information that assists the driver in judging driving when the driver advances the vehicle to a position where the intersection can be seen includes determining whether the stop location is behind the estimated intersection location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hagiwara to provide for an assistance unit that performs the driving assistance when the stop location is ahead of the estimated intersection location in a traveling direction of the surrounding vehicle, and does not perform the driving assistance when the stop location is behind the estimated intersection location in the traveling direction of the surrounding vehicle, as taught by Seto.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to advance the host vehicle to a position and to notify the driver, as suggested by Seto at pages 6-7.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara (US 2022/0289178) in view of Ando et al. (JP 2017091502 A) (English language translation attached) and further in view of Omura et al. (JP 2019142300 A).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Harigawa does not expressly disclose the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the speed of the surrounding vehicle in the surrounding vehicle information is out of a prescribed range, the assistance unit does not perform the driving assistance regardless of the possibility of collision predicted by the prediction unit, which in a related art, Omura teaches (see Omura at pages 5-6 which discloses that when there is a possibility that the vehicle 1 collides with a surrounding vehicle such as an oncoming vehicle, control for avoiding the collision is executed and that these collision avoidances are similarly executed in the preceding vehicle following mode, automatic speed control, and speed limit mode. Examiner notes that when the vehicle is outside of the speed limit mode, such as beyond a particular range, for example, control for avoiding a collision is not active.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hagiwara so that wherein, in a case where the speed of the surrounding vehicle in the surrounding vehicle information is out of a prescribed range, the assistance unit does not perform the driving assistance regardless of the possibility of collision predicted by the prediction unit, as taught by Omura.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide control for avoiding a collision of an oncoming vehicle, as suggested by Omura at pages 5-6.
Subject Matter Not Taught by Art of Record
Examiner notes that the art of record, separately or in combination, does not appear to teach each and every feature of claim 12. Examiner reserves the right to update an examination of the merits at a future date should amendment be made by the Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664