DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on 05 May 2026. Claims 1-20 are 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because submitted replacement sheets of FIG.'s 4A and 4B are blurry a. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment to the drawings, the Examiner acknowledges that drawings have been amended to include reference numeral S107. However, the replacement drawings are still very blurry and unable to read. Corrected drawing sheets are required as described above in the objection to the drawings.
In response to Applicant’s amendments to the specification, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1, the 35 USC § 101 rejection is withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendments to Claim 11, the claim objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) should be reconsidered and withdrawn because “the applied references, individually, or in any combination, fail to disclose or render obvious each and every element of each of the claims 1-20.” More specifically, Applicant argues:
“the system of Kato does not determine that an autonomous driving control is performed to avoid a preset dangerous event, to save video and data in response to the determination that an autonomous driving control is performed to avoid a preset dangerous event, to save video and data in response to the determination that the autonomous driving control is performed to avoid the preset dangerous event, as recite in claim 1. Rather, the system of Kato merely creates a recording at the time of sounding an alarm in a vehicle based on predicting a possible collision in the vehicle.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the specification of the instant application, the disclosure states that “[t]he preset function may include warning a driver of the preset dangerous event” [0020]. Similar recitations could be found throughout the specification, for example [0026]; [0030]; and [0036]. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and in light of the specification, an alarm warning a driver of a preset dangerous event (such as a predicted collision) is sufficient to teach the claim limitation “a preset function of an autonomous driving control is performed for avoiding a preset dangerous event.”
The examiner would also like to point out that, under BRI and in light of the specification, the limitation “preset function of an autonomous driving control” is extremely broad and encompasses all aspects of an autonomous driving control system (e.g., perception, planning, control). This further supports the Examiner’s interpretation that the alarm output as a response of a predicted collision by Kato reads on the “preset function of an autonomous driving control.”
In conclusion, the Examiner’s position is that, under BRI and in light of the specification, the alarm output for a predicted collision, as provided by Kato, corresponds to the “preset function of autonomous driving control” limitation of Claim 1 and since Kato stores the video and related data in response to the alarm, Kato teaches each element and limitation of Claim 1 prior to Applicant’s recent amendments.
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(s) 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. "Kato" (JP2014154135 A) in view of Nithiyanantham et al. "Nithiyanantham" (US 2020/0307616 A1) and further in view of Joe et al. "Joe" (KR20210062530 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kato teaches
A method of recording videos for a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining, by [[a]] the controller, that a preset function of an autonomous driving control is performed for avoiding a preset dangerous event see at least [0001]-[0002] where a preset dangerous event (e.g., near-miss) alarm signal is output from a collision prevention auxiliary device of a vehicle; [[and]]
storing, by the controller, i) a video of surroundings of the vehicle and ii) data related to the preset function in association with the video in response to determining that the preset function is performed see at least [0002]-[0003] where a drive recorder receives the alarm signal from the collision prevention auxiliary device. In response to the alarm signal, a video file along with information such as the time and acceleration is created and stored;
Kato teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except:
setting, by a controller, at least one area to be scanned outside the vehicle;
performing, by the controller, an intervening control to avoid the preset dangerous event while the vehicle is controlled in a driver driving mode.
However, Kato discloses that it is known for a collision prevention assist system to take control of the vehicle if a preset dangerous event (e.g., a near-miss event) is predicted and further teaches recording video footage of about 15 seconds before and after the event along with other sensor data in response to the preset dangerous event.
Nevertheless, Nithiyanantham teaches that it is known to provide:
setting, by a controller, at least one area to be scanned outside the vehicle. See at least FIG. 8; S804 and [0067] where a driver assistance system (DAS) is provided in a vehicle and configured to monitor the surrounding areas of the vehicle for nearby objects by a radar system, LIDAR system, etc. If an object is detected by the radar system, LIDAR system, etc., the DAS may determine that the vehicle is on a collision path with the detected object, issue an alert, and record video from the cameras. In this scenario, the area set to be scanned is the area surrounding the vehicle wherein at least one radar, LIDAR, or similar sensor is mounted to the vehicle and configured to scan for nearby objects.
Kato and Nithiyanantham are analogous art since they both disclose methods of determining that a preset dangerous event is occurring around and/or inside a vehicle and storing video and related data in response to the event.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kato to incorporate the teachings of Nithiyanantham and provide the method of claim 1 comprising setting, by a controller, at least one area to be scanned outside the vehicle. In doing so, this improves the overall safety of the system by, for example, providing an audio alert which includes a recommended action to take to avoid the collision, an identification of the recognized object, and/or a time until collision with the recognized object [0068].
Joe teaches that it is known to provide:
performing, by the controller, an intervening control to avoid the preset dangerous event while the vehicle is controlled in a driver driving mode see at least [0026] where the preset dangerous event may be a driver’s health risk state event. In response to detecting the preset dangerous event, the main controller takes action to transfer driving control to the autonomous vehicle.
Kato and Joe are analogous art since they both disclose methods of determining that a preset dangerous event is occurring and storing video and related data in response to the event.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kato in view of Nithiyanantham to incorporate the teachings of Joe and provide the method comprising setting, by a controller, at least one area to be scanned outside the vehicle and performing, by the controller, an intervening control to avoid the preset dangerous event while the vehicle is controlled in a driver driving mode. In doing so, the method is improved by increasing the safety of controlling the vehicle by preventing potential collisions in situations where a driver can no longer safely drive the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
The method of claim 1,
determining that the preset dangerous event occurs comprises determining that the preset dangerous event occurs in the at least one area see at least Kato the first introductory paragraph and [0001]-[0002] where the collision prevention assist system uses radar and cameras to constantly monitors objects on the road for the possibility of collision while driving. Although Kato does not explicitly disclose determining that the preset dangerous event occurs in the at least one area, Nithiyanantham positively discloses scanning the surroundings of the vehicle for nearby objects and determining whether or not the vehicle is on a collision path with the detected object based on a location and distance of the object relative to the vehicle; and
storing the video comprises storing a video of the at least one area in response to determining that the preset dangerous event has occurred see at least Kato [0001]-[0003] where a video file is created for each near miss and stored.
Regarding claim 3, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control the vehicle in a full-driving-automation mode where the controller fully exercises control of the vehicle see at least Joe [0003] & [0020] where the provided vehicle is capable of transitioning from manual driving to autonomous driving (i.e., full driving automation mode).
Regarding claim 4, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the preset function includes giving a driver a warning of the preset dangerous event see at least Kato [0002]-[0003] where an alarm is output from the collision prevention auxiliary device to notify the driver of the near-miss event.
Regarding claim 6, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising[[:]]intervening control in association with the video see at least Joe [0026] where the preset dangerous event may be a driver’s health risk state event. In response to detecting the preset dangerous event, the main controller takes action to transfer driving control to the autonomous vehicle. Further, see at least Joe [0026] where the driver’s health risk state event data is stored in the memory and also see at least [0062]-[0063] where the main controller stores collected data in a volatile and/or nonvolatile memory. The collected data includes data from vehicle sensors such as cameras (both exterior and interior to the vehicle), lidars, etc. used for autonomous driving event logging ([0003] & [0010]).
Since the vehicle sensor data is continuously collected via the volatile memory this teaches storing the video of the surroundings of the vehicle at the intervening control, status information of the vehicle and data related to the intervening control in association with the video. Further, Kato discloses recording video data during a detected event and Joe discloses storing autonomous driving sensor data therefore Kato may be further modified by Joe in order to record video data during an event which is captured during the intervening control.
Regarding claim 7, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
The method of claim 6, wherein the data related to the intervening control includes information on having given the driver a warning of the preset dangerous event see at least Joe [0062]-[0063] where the main controller stores collected data in a volatile and/or nonvolatile memory. The collected data includes data from vehicle sensors such as cameras (both exterior and interior to the vehicle), lidars, etc. used for autonomous driving event logging ([0003] & [0010]). Since the vehicle sensor data is continuously collected via the volatile memory this teaches storing data related to the intervening control.
Regarding claim 8, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
The method of claim 6, wherein the status information includes one or more of i) information obtained by at least one light detection and ranging (LIDAR) module see at least Joe [0003] & [0010] where the autonomous driving sensing device may be a LIDAR sensor, ii) information obtained by at least one radar, or iii) information obtained by at least one ultrasonic sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising storing, by the controller,
details of the autonomous driving control and sensor data while the vehicle is controlled in an autonomous driving mode see at least Joe [0024] where the controller may store data on the obstacle ahead and data indicating that the autonomous vehicle is in a state in which it is difficult to drive in the non-volatile memory and
a video of surroundings of the vehicle captured during the autonomous driving mode see at least Joe [0062]-[0063] where the main controller stores collected data in a volatile and/or nonvolatile memory. The collected data includes data from vehicle sensors such as cameras (both exterior and interior to the vehicle), lidars, etc. used for autonomous driving event logging ([0003] & [0010]). Since the vehicle sensor data is continuously collected via the volatile memory this teaches. Further, Kato discloses recording video data during a detected event therefore Kato may be further modified by Joe in order to record video data during an event which is captured during the autonomous driving mode.
Regarding claim 10, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the preset function includes warning a driver of the preset dangerous event while the vehicle is controlled in an autonomous driving mode see at least Joe [0024] where the controller may provide a transition guidance (e.g., warning) so that the driver can take control of the driving when it is determined that an obstacle that is detected around the vehicle makes it difficult for the autonomous vehicle to drive.
Regarding claim 11, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
A system for recording videos for a vehicle see at least the abstract of Kato, the system comprising:
two or more sensing sensor modules configured to set at least one area to be scanned outside the vehicle see at least Joe [0003] and [0010] where a plurality of high-performance sensors are used for autonomous driving, such as cameras, lidar, laser scanners, infrared cameras, as well as hundreds of internal and external sensors are used to safely control an autonomous vehicle. Further, see at least [0078] & [0080] where the sensing device (i.e., lidars, laser scanner, etc.) may be configured to detect an obstacle in front of the autonomous driving path;
a camera configured to obtain a video of surroundings of the vehicle see at least Kato [0003];
a controller configured to determine that a preset function of an autonomous driving control is performed for avoiding a preset dangerous event see at least Kato [0001]-[0002] where a near-miss alarm signal is output from a collision prevention auxiliary device of a vehicle; and
a storage unit configured to store the video obtained by the camera and data related to the preset function in association with the video under control of the controller in response to determining by the controller that the preset function is performed see at least Kato [0002]-[0003] where a drive recorder receives the alarm signal from the collision prevention auxiliary device. In response to the alarm signal, a video file along with information such as the time and acceleration is created and stored,
wherein the controller is configured to:
determine that the preset dangerous event occurs in at least one area set to be scanned outside the vehicle see at least Joe [0003] and [0010] where a plurality of sensors including cameras, lidars, and laser scanners are used for autonomous driving event logging. Further, see at least [0078] & [0080] where the sensing device (i.e., lidars, laser scanner, etc.) may be configured to detect an obstacle in front of the autonomous driving path, and
perform an intervening control to avoid the preset dangerous event while the vehicle is controlled in a driver driving mode see at least Joe [0026] where the preset dangerous event may be a driver’s health risk state event. In response to detecting the preset dangerous event, the main controller takes action to transfer driving control to the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
The system of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to[[:]]see at least Kato [0001]-[0003] where a drive recorder is configured to create and store a video file for each near miss.
Claim 13 recites substantially similar technical features as claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar technical features as claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar technical features as claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale used for the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar technical features as claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale used for the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 18 recites substantially similar technical features as claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale used for the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 19 recites substantially similar technical features as claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale used for the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
The method of claim 11, wherein the preset function includes warning a driver of the
preset dangerous event while the vehicle is controlled in an autonomous driving mode see at least Joe [0024] where the controller may provide a transition guidance (e.g., warning) so that the driver can take control of the driving when it is determined that an obstacle that is detected around the vehicle makes it difficult for the autonomous vehicle to drive.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe and further in view of Matsuoka (US 12,472,870 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe teaches
The method of claim 4, wherein the data includes Kato mentions that the drive recorder stores video footage along with information such as the time and acceleration sensor data associated with the preset dangerous event in an external memory; see at least [0003].
Matsuoka teaches that it is known to provide:
The method of claim 4, wherein the data includes details of the warning see at least the Abstract where an alerting system of a vehicle is provided which provides a notification to a driver of the vehicle and records details of the warning such as a reactive behavior to the notification.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kato in view of Nithiyanantham and Joe to incorporate the teachings of Matsuoka and provide the method of claim 4, wherein the data includes details of the warning. In doing so, this provides an improvement of notifying the driver of a preset dangerous event in a form easily acceptable to a driver of the vehicle (Col. 1, lines 62-65).
Claim 15 recites substantially similar technical features as claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale used for the rejection of claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morita et al. (US 11,995,926 B2) discloses a recording control device configured to detect an event related to the vehicle and record imaging data in response to detection of the event.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brittany Renee Peko whose telephone number is (408)918-7506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:30 PT.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/B.R.P./07/16/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/AMELIA VORCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights