DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
Claims 1-7 are currently pending for examination.
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: “controlled vehicle movement information acquisition unit configured to – corresponding to element 11 Fig. 2”, “surrounding object movement information acquisition unit configured to– corresponding to element 12 Fig. 2”, “risk occurrence time point prediction unit configured to – corresponding to element 13 Fig. 2”, “driver state recognition unit configured to – corresponding to element 14 in Fig. 2”, and “calling attention control unit configured to – corresponding to element 15 in Fig. 2” in claims 1 and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the surrounding object movement information includes information indicating whether or not the controlled vehicle is recognized in the surrounding object " renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear if the surrounding object itself recognize the controlled vehicle or the controlled vehicle appear within a recognition range associated with the surrounding object and how the surrounding movement information indicate whether the vehicle is recognized. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heck et al. (Heck; US 2023/0166731).
For claim 1, Heck discloses a driving assistance apparatus comprising:
a controlled vehicle movement information acquisition unit configured to acquire controlled vehicle movement information including position information of a controlled vehicle [E.g. 0389: the intersection violation predictor 222 may be configured to determine the distance d between the subject vehicle and the stop location by analyzing image(s) from the first camera 202. Alternatively, or additionally, the intersection violation predictor 222 may receive information from a GPS system indicating a position of the subject vehicle, and a location of an intersection. In such cases, the intersection violation predictor 222 may determine the distance d based on the position of the subject vehicle and the location of the intersection, 0393: the processing unit 210 may be configured to determine a distance d that is between the subject vehicle and a location in front of the vehicle, wherein the location may be a location of an object (e.g., a lead vehicle, a pedestrian, etc.) as captured in an image from the first camera 202, an expected stop position for the vehicle, etc. Various techniques may be employed in different embodiments to determine the distance d, 0394: the processing unit 210 may be configured to determine the distance d based on a Y-to-d mapping, wherein Y represents a y-coordinate in an image frame, and d represents the distance between the subject vehicle and the location corresponding to y-coordinate in the image frame. This concept is illustrated in the example of FIG. 20, which illustrates an example of a technique of determining a distance d between the subject vehicle and a location in front of the vehicle. In the top graph, different widths of bounding boxes of lead vehicles detected in camera images are plotted with respect to their respective y-coordinates (i.e., the y components of the respective locations of the bounding boxes of detected objects as they appear in the camera images), and a best-fit line can be determined to relate the y-coordinates and the respective widths of the bounding boxes. In the top graph, the y-coordinates are based on a coordinate system in which the origin y=0 is at a top of a camera image. In other embodiments, the y-coordinates may be based on other coordinate systems (e.g., a coordinate system in which the origin y=0 is at a bottom of the image, or in a middle of the image). In the illustrated example, the higher y-coordinate values correspond larger widths of the bounding boxes. This is because a vehicle detected closer to the camera will be larger (having larger corresponding bounding box) and will appear closer to a bottom of the camera image, compared to another vehicle that is further away from the camera. Also, in the illustrated example, the best-fit line in the top graph of FIG. 20 has a line equation with two parameters: B=−693.41 and m=1.46, where B is the value when y=0, and m is the slope of the best-fit line, 0395, Fig. 13];
a surrounding object movement information acquisition unit configured to acquire surrounding object movement information including position information of a surrounding object present around the controlled vehicle [E.g. 0393: the processing unit 210 may be configured to determine a distance d that is between the subject vehicle and a location in front of the vehicle, wherein the location may be a location of an object (e.g., a lead vehicle, a pedestrian, etc.) as captured in an image from the first camera 202, an expected stop position for the vehicle, 0394: the processing unit 210 may be configured to determine the distance d based on a Y-to-d mapping, wherein Y represents a y-coordinate in an image frame, and d represents the distance between the subject vehicle and the location corresponding to y-coordinate in the image frame. This concept is illustrated in the example of FIG. 20, which illustrates an example of a technique of determining a distance d between the subject vehicle and a location in front of the vehicle. In the top graph, different widths of bounding boxes of lead vehicles detected in camera images are plotted with respect to their respective y-coordinates (i.e., the y components of the respective locations of the bounding boxes of detected objects as they appear in the camera images), and a best-fit line can be determined to relate the y-coordinates and the respective widths of the bounding boxes. In the top graph, the y-coordinates are based on a coordinate system in which the origin y=0 is at a top of a camera image. In other embodiments, the y-coordinates may be based on other coordinate systems (e.g., a coordinate system in which the origin y=0 is at a bottom of the image, or in a middle of the image). In the illustrated example, the higher y-coordinate values correspond larger widths of the bounding boxes. This is because a vehicle detected closer to the camera will be larger (having larger corresponding bounding box) and will appear closer to a bottom of the camera image, compared to another vehicle that is further away from the camera. Also, in the illustrated example, the best-fit line in the top graph of FIG. 20 has a line equation with two parameters: B=−693.41 and m=1.46, where B is the value when y=0, and m is the slope of the best-fit line, 0395];
a risk occurrence time point prediction step of predicting a risk occurrence time point at which a predetermined risk occurs due to approaching of the controlled vehicle and the surrounding object, based on the controlled vehicle movement information and the surrounding object movement information [E.g. 0386: the intersection violation predictor 222 may determine TTB based on the equation: TTB=(d−BD)/V, where V is the speed of the vehicle. Because d is the distance from the current vehicle position to the stop location (e.g., stop line), and BD is the braking distance, the term (d-BD) represents the remaining distance to be traveled by the subject vehicle, during which time the driver may react to the environment before applying brake for the vehicle. Thus, the term (d-BD)/V represents the time that the driver has to react to the environment before applying the brake for the vehicle. In some embodiments, if TTB=(d−BD)/V<=a threshold reaction time, then the intersection violation predictor 222 may generate a control signal to operate a device to provide a warning to the driver, and/or to operate a device to automatically control the vehicle, 0389: the intersection violation predictor 222 may be configured to determine the distance d between the subject vehicle and the stop location by analyzing image(s) from the first camera 202. Alternatively, or additionally, the intersection violation predictor 222 may receive information from a GPS system indicating a position of the subject vehicle, and a location of an intersection. In such cases, the intersection violation predictor 222 may determine the distance d based on the position of the subject vehicle and the location of the intersection, 0405: when the second threshold TH2 is reached at t=5 sec, the signal generation controller 224 still uses the second threshold TH2 (for distracted state) because the state of the driver in this scenario changes from distracted state to not-distracted state only shortly before the threshold TH2 at t=5 sec. Thus, in some embodiments, the signal generation controller 224 may be configured to consider the state of the driver within a temporal window before the threshold (e.g., 1.5 sec, 2 sec, etc. before TH2) to determine whether to use the threshold for determining the generation of the control signal. In other embodiments, the signal generation controller 224 may be configured to consider the state of the driver at the time of the threshold to determine whether to use the threshold, 0406: the signal generation controller 224 utilizes the third threshold TH3 (at TTC=8 sec, which corresponds to t=2 sec) as the time for providing the control signal CS (to operate a warning device and/or a vehicle control). In other words, when the TTC decreases from the initial 10 sec and reaches the 8 sec threshold, then the signal generation controller 224 provides the control signal CS. Therefore, in the situation in which the driver is drowsy, the signal generation controller 224 will provide the control signal even earlier (i.e., earlier than when the driver is alert but is distracted) to cause a warning to be provided to the driver and/or to operate the vehicle, 0407];
a driver state recognition unit configured to recognize a state of a driver of the controlled vehicle [E.g. 0405: the output of the driver monitoring module 211 indicates that the driver is not-distracted (N) from t=0 to t=2 sec, is distracted (D) from t=2 to 3.5 sec, and becomes not-distracted (N) again from t=3.5 to 5 sec and beyond. Although the state of the driver is not-distracted (N) when the second threshold TH2 is reached at t=5 sec, the signal generation controller 224 still uses the second threshold TH2 (for distracted state) because the state of the driver in this scenario changes from distracted state to not-distracted state only shortly before the threshold TH2 at t=5 sec. Thus, in some embodiments, the signal generation controller 224 may be configured to consider the state of the driver within a temporal window before the threshold (e.g., 1.5 sec, 2 sec, etc. before TH2) to determine whether to use the threshold for determining the generation of the control signal. In other embodiments, the signal generation controller 224 may be configured to consider the state of the driver at the time of the threshold to determine whether to use the threshold, 0406: the output of the driver monitoring module 211 indicates that the driver is drowsy (R) from t=0 to t=2 sec (corresponding to TTC of 8 seconds) and beyond. Accordingly, the signal generation controller 224 utilizes the third threshold TH3 (at TTC=8 sec, which corresponds to t=2 sec) as the time for providing the control signal CS (to operate a warning device and/or a vehicle control). In other words, when the TTC decreases from the initial 10 sec and reaches the 8 sec threshold, then the signal generation controller 224 provides the control signal CS. Therefore, in the situation in which the driver is drowsy, the signal generation controller 224 will provide the control signal even earlier (i.e., earlier than when the driver is alert but is distracted) to cause a warning to be provided to the driver and/or to operate the vehicle, 0407: the threshold is variable in real time based on the state of the driver as determined by the driver monitoring module 211]; and
a calling attention control step of determining execution timing of calling attention by a notification device provided in the controlled vehicle and contents of the calling attention, based on a remaining time until the risk occurrence time point and the state of the driver recognized by the driver state recognition step [E.g. 0405-0408].
For claim 3, Heck discloses wherein the calling attention control unit increases a level of the calling attention as the remaining time until the predetermined risk occurrence time point decreases [E.g. 0405-0407, 0388].
For claim 4, Heck discloses wherein the driver state recognition unit recognizes a driving state of the controlled vehicle by the driver as the state of the driver, and the calling attention control unit does not execute the calling attention when it is determined that the driver is capable of avoiding the predetermined risk from the driving state of the controlled vehicle by the driver recognized by the driver state recognition unit [E.g. 0408, 0032, 0060, Fig. 13].
For claim 5, Heck discloses wherein the driver state recognition unit recognizes a health state of the driver [E.g. 0405-0407, 0032] and the direction of the line of sight of the driver [E.g. 0109, 0060-0063, 00405, 0052-0057], and when it is recognized by the driver state recognition unit that the line of sight of the driver is directed to the surrounding object [0405, 0060-0063], the calling attention control unit determines whether or not to perform the calling attention according to the health state of the driver recognized by the driver state recognition unit [E.g. 0405-0408].
For claim 6, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
For claim 7, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck in view of Kawanishi et al. (Kawanishi; JP 2015/108926; machine translation is used).
For claim 2, Heck discloses wherein the driver state recognition unit recognizes a direction of a line of sight of the driver as the state of the driver [E.g. 0109, 0153, 0275, 0284, Fig. 5].
Heck fails to expressly disclose that the surrounding object movement information includes information indicating whether or not the controlled vehicle is recognized in the surrounding object, and the calling attention control unit executes the calling attention when it is determined that the controlled vehicle is not recognized in the surrounding object based on the surrounding object movement information, even in a case where it is recognized by the driver state recognition unit that the line of sight of the driver is directed to the surrounding object.
However, as shown by Kawanishi, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include surrounding object movement information includes information indicating whether or not the controlled vehicle is recognized in the surrounding object, and the calling attention control unit executes the calling attention when it is determined that the controlled vehicle is not recognized in the surrounding object based on the surrounding object movement information, even in a case where it is recognized by the driver state recognition unit that the line of sight of the driver is directed to the surrounding object [E.g. 0012, 0018-0020, 0030-0035, 0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before
the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Heck with the teaching of Kawanishi in order to enable alerting the driver even when the surrounding object is recognized and thereby enhance the overall safety on the road, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689