DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1 – 9 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (US 2023/0286537).
Regarding Claim 1:
Nakamura et al. teaches a driving assistance control apparatus comprising a controller (70) configured to: when a host vehicle (1) is located in a normal region other than a specific region (determined via S100, which detects the current position of the host vehicle), perform a first assistance control (via 40) which is a standard driving assistance control based on electronic data stored in a memory before factory shipment of said host vehicle (paragraphs 0006, 0021, 0084 describe the vehicle having a first map storage 10 that stores initial map information, and the Examiner takes Official notice that this applies to brand new vehicles when they are first created and utilized); and when said host vehicle is located in said specific region, perform, in place of said first assistance control, a second assistance control which is a driving assistance control for said specific region using electronic data that is received from a server external to said host vehicle (paragraphs 0006, 0021, 0084 describe second map storage 61 downloading updated map information via 60 and 100 shown in fig 1, and Fig 2 shows preliminary downloads at various points in time and position, which are acquired via 20 and calculated via 40 based on “a section included in the route calculated..” of paragraph 0006; see also, the subsequent downloading at various points of time and sections of travel to update the map information as shown in Figs 5 and 7).
Regarding Claim 2:
Nakamura teaches when a planned travel route of said host vehicle is a route passing through said specific region, said controller is configured to complete receiving said electronic data from said server before a time point at which said host vehicle enters said specific region (Fig 2, via S140 and S200).
Regarding Claim 3:
Nakamura teaches when said controller determines that said controller can receive said electronic data and set said electronic data in such a manner that said controller can use said electronic data in a period from a time point at which said controller recognizes that said planned travel route of said host vehicle is said route passing through said specific region to a time point at which said host vehicle is predicted to reach said specific region, said controller is configured to complete receiving said electronic data from said server and complete setting said electronic data in such a manner that said controller can use said electronic data (Figs 2 – 5).
Regarding Claim 4:
Nakamura teaches said controller is configured to: store temporarily said electronic data received from said server in a memory; and delete said electronic data stored in said memory to perform said second assistance control from said memory, when said host vehicle has left said specific region where said second assistance control was being performed, said planned travel route includes another specific region, and there is not enough memory capacity to store electronic data for performing a third assistance control for that another specific region (Figs 2 – 7, via partial downloads).
Regarding Claim 6:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Nakamura teaches a step of completing receiving said electronic data from said server before a time point at which said host vehicle enters said specific region, when a planned travel route of said host vehicle is a route passing through said specific region (via S300).
Regarding Claim 8:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9:
See rejection of Claim 7 above.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2023/0286537) and in view of Iwase et al. (US 2023/0234575).
Regarding Claim 5:
Nakamura et al. is silent to said controller is configured to: perform a first collision avoidance assistance control as said first assistance control, when an other vehicle is located in a travel direction of said host vehicle and a collision possibility indicating value indicative of a possibility that said other vehicle collides with said host vehicle satisfies a predetermined first condition; and determine that said host vehicle is located in said specific region when said host vehicle is located in a region that includes a road with a shape that causes said other vehicle to come closer to a front face of said host vehicle, and perform a second collision avoidance assistance control as said second assistance control when said collision possibility indicating value satisfies a second condition that is set based on said electronic data received from said server.
However, Iwase et al. teaches a collision avoidance assistance control (Figs 11 – 14), and assigned various levels of risk (Fig 14) in which driver assistance is affected at various position points along a traveled route (Figs 4 – 5, 7 – 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the collision avoidance assistance control of Iwase et al. in the apparatus of Nakamura in order to control the vehicle around obstacles based on acquired environmental data and to securely allow travel of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747