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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 11 recites “where relation of position between the object and the vehicle”, which Examiner suggests amending to “where a relation of position between the object and the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “based on speed of the vehicle”, which Examiner suggests amending to “based on a speed of the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 recite “includes moving object”, which Examiner suggests amending to “includes a moving object”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 9 recites “where relation of position between the object and the vehicle”, which Examiner suggests amending to “where a relation of position between the object and the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “based on speed of the vehicle”, which Examiner suggests amending to “based on a speed of the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 recite “includes moving object”, which Examiner suggests amending to “includes a moving object”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 recites “where relation of position between the object and the vehicle”, which Examiner suggests amending to “where a relation of position between the object and the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “based on speed of the vehicle”, which Examiner suggests amending to “based on a speed of the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 recite “includes moving object”, which Examiner suggests amending to “includes a moving object”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 recite “wherein the at least one processor further configured”, which examiner suggests amending to “wherein the at least one processor is further configured”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8 recites “where relation of position between the object and the vehicle”, which Examiner suggests amending to “where a relation of position between the object and the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “based on speed of the vehicle”, which Examiner suggests amending to “based on a speed of the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 recite “includes moving object”, which Examiner suggests amending to “includes a moving object”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 6-9, 17-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hotta et al. (WO 2011108091, see translated version).
With regards to claim 6, Hotta et al. discloses a method comprising:
acquiring weather information (Page 31: Para. 4 line 1, Page 32: Para. 1 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-4, Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, "weather" "post-movement position");
detecting an object in front of a vehicle used by a camera, the camera being equipped with the vehicle (Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Para. 4 lines 1-3, Page 45: Para. 1 lines 1-2, "obstacle position" "cameras"); and
displaying, on a display which is equipped with the vehicle, an image in response to detecting the object, the image showing information indicating a position of the object and information indicating a position of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 1 lines 1-5, Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 41: Para. 2 lines 1-5, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "position" "in-vehicle display device"),
wherein the information indicating the position of the object is emphasized in a case where relation of position between the object and the vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition, the predetermined condition being related to a collision between the object and the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "high risk of colliding" "green" "red").
With regards to claim 7, Hotta et al. discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the information indicating the position of the object is displayed based on an appearance of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 41: Para. 2 lines 1-5, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "position" "other vehicle" "figure 180").
With regards to claim 8, Hotta et al. discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the information indicating the position of the object is emphasized based on speed of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, "speed" "green" "red").
With regards to claim 9, Hotta et al. discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the object includes moving object (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Para. 4 lines 1-3, Page 45: Para. 1 lines 1-2, "another vehicle").
With regards to claim 17, Hotta et al. discloses a method comprising:
detecting an object in front of a vehicle used by a camera without radar, the camera being equipped with the vehicle (Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Para. 4 lines 1-3, Page 45: Para. 1 lines 1-2, "obstacle position" "cameras"); and
displaying, on a display which is equipped with the vehicle, an image in response to detecting the object, the image showing information indicating a position of the object and information indicating a position of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 1 lines 1-5, Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 41: Para. 2 lines 1-5, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "position" "in-vehicle display device"),
wherein the information indicating the position of the object is emphasized in a case where relation of position between the object and the vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition, the predetermined condition being related to a collision between the object and the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "high risk of colliding" "green" "red").
With regards to claim 18, Hotta et al. discloses the method according to claim 17, wherein the information indicating the position of the object is displayed based on an appearance of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 41: Para. 2 lines 1-5, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "position" "other vehicle" "figure 180").
With regards to claim 19, Hotta et al. discloses the method according to claim 17, wherein the information indicating the position of the object is emphasized based on speed of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, "speed" "green" "red").
With regards to claim 20, Hotta et al. discloses the method according to claim 17, wherein the object includes moving object (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Para. 4 lines 1-3, Page 45: Para. 1 lines 1-2, "another vehicle").
With regards to claim 22, Hotta et al. discloses the method according to claim 17, further comprising acquiring weather information (Page 31: Para. 4 line 1, Page 32: Para. 1 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-4, Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, "weather" "post-movement position").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta et al. (WO 2011108091, see translated version).
With regards to claim 1, Hotta et al. discloses a vehicle comprising:
instructions to: acquire weather information (Page 31: Para. 4 line 1, Page 32: Para. 1 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-4, Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, "weather" "post-movement position");
detect an object in front of the vehicle used by a camera, the camera being equipped with the vehicle (Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Para. 4 lines 1-3, Page 45: Para. 1 lines 1-2, "obstacle position" "cameras"); and
display, on a display which is equipped with the vehicle, an image in response to detecting the object, the image showing information indicating a position of the object and information indicating a position of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 1 lines 1-5, Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 41: Para. 2 lines 1-5, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "position" "in-vehicle display device"),
wherein the information indicating the position of the object is emphasized in a case where relation of position between the object and the vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition, the predetermined condition being related to a collision between the object and the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "high risk of colliding" "green" "red").
Hotta et al. does not explicitly teach at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform the functions.
However, Official Notice is taken that the use of a processor and a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute to perform computations and complex algorithms on images is well known and expected in the art since it is more practical and efficient to perform the instructions with a processor and a memory storing the instructions than to perform them manually.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the instructions with a processor executing the instructions stored in a memory as is well known in the art since it is more practical and efficient, where instructions are stored in a memory, than to perform them manually.
With regards to claim 2, Hotta et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the information indicating the position of the object is displayed based on an appearance of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 41: Para. 2 lines 1-5, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "position" "other vehicle" "figure 180").
With regards to claim 3, Hotta et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the information indicating the position of the object is emphasized based on speed of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, "speed" "green" "red").
With regards to claim 4, Hotta et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the object includes moving object (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Para. 4 lines 1-3, Page 45: Para. 1 lines 1-2, "another vehicle").
With regards to claim 11, Hotta et al. discloses a vehicle comprising:
instructions to: detect an object in front of the vehicle used by a camera without radar, the camera being equipped with the vehicle (Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Para. 4 lines 1-3, Page 45: Para. 1 lines 1-2, "obstacle position" "cameras"); and
display, on a display which is equipped with the vehicle, an image in response to detecting the object, the image showing information indicating a position of the object and information indicating a position of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 1 lines 1-5, Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 41: Para. 2 lines 1-5, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "position" "in-vehicle display device"),
wherein the information indicating the position of the object is emphasized in a case where relation of position between the object and the vehicle satisfies a predetermined condition, the predetermined condition being related to a collision between the object and the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "high risk of colliding" "green" "red").
Hotta et al. does not explicitly teach at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform the functions.
However, Official Notice is taken that the use of a processor and a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute to perform computations, and complex algorithms on images is well known and expected in the art since it is more practical and efficient to perform the instructions with a processor and a memory storing the instructions than to perform them manually.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the instructions with a processor executing the instructions stored in a memory as is well known in the art since it is more practical and efficient, where instructions are stored in a memory, than to perform them manually.
With regards to claim 12, Hotta et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the information indicating the position of the object is displayed based on an appearance of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 41: Para. 2 lines 1-5, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, "position" "other vehicle" "figure 180").
With regards to claim 13, Hotta et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the information indicating the position of the object is emphasized based on speed of the vehicle (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Page 45: Para. 2 lines 1-4, Para. 3 lines 1-7, "speed" "green" "red").
With regards to claim 14, Hotta et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the object includes moving object (Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Page 42: Para. 2 lines 5-9, Page 44: Para. 3 lines 1-9, Para. 4 lines 1-3, Page 45: Para. 1 lines 1-2, "another vehicle").
With regards to claim 16, Hotta et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the at least one processor further configured to execute the instructions to acquire weather information (Page 31: Para. 4 line 1, Page 32: Para. 1 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-4, Page 40: Para. 2 lines 1-3, Para. 3 lines 1-3, "weather" "post-movement position").
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta et al. (WO 2011108091, see translated version) in view of Yang et al. (US 10,643,473).
With regards to claim 5, Hotta et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 1.
Hotta et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the object includes a bicycle.
However, Yang et al. discloses that an object which may be photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle could be a bicycle (Col. 6 lines 5-8, "bicycle"). While Hotta et al. discloses an object photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle to be another vehicle, Yang et al. teaches an object which may be photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle to be a bicycle. In both cases, an object in the vicinity of the vehicle is obtained and detected by a camera.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle of Hotta et al. to replace the other vehicle detected by the camera with a bicycle detected by the camera as taught by Yang et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to obtain and detect an object in the vicinity of the vehicle.
With regards to claim 10, Hotta et al. discloses the method according to claim 6.
Hotta et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the object includes a bicycle.
However, Yang et al. discloses that an object which may be photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle could be a bicycle (Col. 6 lines 5-8, "bicycle"). While Hotta et al. discloses an object photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle to be another vehicle, Yang et al. teaches an object which may be photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle to be a bicycle. In both cases, an object in the vicinity of the vehicle is obtained and detected by a camera.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hotta et al. to replace the other vehicle detected by the camera with a bicycle detected by the camera as taught by Yang et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to obtain and detect an object in the vicinity of the vehicle.
With regards to claim 15, Hotta et al. discloses the vehicle according to claim 11.
Hotta et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the object includes a bicycle.
However, Yang et al. discloses that an object which may be photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle could be a bicycle (Col. 6 lines 5-8, "bicycle"). While Hotta et al. discloses an object photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle to be another vehicle, Yang et al. teaches an object which may be photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle to be a bicycle. In both cases, an object in the vicinity of the vehicle is obtained and detected by a camera.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the vehicle of Hotta et al. to replace the other vehicle detected by the camera with a bicycle detected by the camera as taught by Yang et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to obtain and detect an object in the vicinity of the vehicle.
With regards to claim 21, Hotta et al. discloses the method according to claim 17.
Hotta et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the object includes a bicycle.
However, Yang et al. discloses that an object which may be photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle could be a bicycle (Col. 6 lines 5-8, "bicycle"). While Hotta et al. discloses an object photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle to be another vehicle, Yang et al. teaches an object which may be photographed in the vicinity of the vehicle to be a bicycle. In both cases, an object in the vicinity of the vehicle is obtained and detected by a camera.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hotta et al. to replace the other vehicle detected by the camera with a bicycle detected by the camera as taught by Yang et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to obtain and detect an object in the vicinity of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights