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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 10/19/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-180326 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Reference the failure of priority document exchange mailed 3/19/25.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1,12,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokan et al US 2015/0307091 in view of Katou et al US 2020/0180507.
In Re 1, Gokan teaches
A method of controlling a vehicular system installed in a vehicle (title, abstract, figs 1-3), the method comprising:
detecting an obstacle (fig 4 S110-125)) located around the vehicle;
determining whether the obstacle has a collision possibility that the obstacle is likely to collide with the vehicle (S125a yes fig 5);
determining, in response to determination that the obstacle has the collision possibility (S125a yes fig 5),
determining whether at least one collision-avoidance operation has been carried out (S150-160) by the at least one occupant since (S150-S160 are after S125); and
executing a collision-avoidance assistance determination (S125o, or S145, fig 10 natural thing or edge stone, obstacle) of whether to instruct a vehicle motion control system installed in the vehicular system to execute a collision-avoidance assistance operation, the executing determining not to (figs 11-12, S270 S370 brake amount zero and acceleration suppression amount zero) instruct the vehicle motion control system to execute the collision-avoidance assistance operation upon determination that:
(i) no collision-avoidance operations have been carried out by the at least one occupant since the issuance of the notification related to the collision possibility (S150 YES absence of brake pedal manipulation by driver); and
(ii) the obstacle having the collision possibility is a low-height object (S125d yes height determination possible, decision level = lv0, level zero, S125o), the low-height object being defined as an object (natural thing such as grass, grass clippings, or leaves, paras 4,24,51,101,160-161) that has fallen on a road (grass can fall on road, as can natural things like grass clippings, leaves, further grass seeds can fall on road and sprout growing grass) and has a height that is sufficiently low (grass and other natural things are short enough for a vehicle to pass over, further gravel or small stones which are natural things can be placed or fallen into road which vehicle can drive over) that the vehicle is enabled to pass over the obstacle (paras 160-169 fig 17 acceleration and braking assistance are not enabled and driver has complete control of vehicle without intervention by robot control)(at least all figs and paras).
Gokan does not teach however Katou teaches determining, to instruct a notification system (figs 2a-2b) installed in the vehicular system to issue, to at least one occupant of the vehicle, a notification related to the collision possibility (S1017 fig 10, para 150) with the obstacle in at least one of (Markush) a visible (314 fig 9a, paras 19,124) format and an audible format (para 38). Katou teaches displaying warning helps an operator to easily grasp the situation on the screen (para 37). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Katou’s warning display in response to Gokan’s collision possibility S125a since Gokan’s issuance of the notification related to the collision possibility as Gokan’s S150-S160 are after S125 for operator to easily grasp the collision possibility situation.
In Re 2, Gokan in view of Katou teaches determining whether the obstacle having the collision possibility is the low-height object upon determination that no collision-avoidance operations have been carried out by the at least one occupant for a predetermined period (construed as the internal computer clock programming per step) since the issuance of the notification related to the collision possibility.
In Re 3, Gokan in view of Katou teaches calculating a time left until the vehicle and the obstacle having the collision possibility will collide with each other (construed as s125p absence of short distance lost, time equaling distance to object over vehicle velocity, La detection distance s125c, vehicle speed S130, see figs 9a-9c, especially 9c, paras 98-103, especially 103); and determining whether the obstacle having the collision possibility is the low-height object (s125o) upon determination that: the calculated time is within a predetermined first period (construed as the internal computer clock programming per step); and no collision-avoidance operations have been carried out by the at least one occupant for a predetermined second period (construed as the internal computer clock programming per step).
In Re 4, Gokan in view of Katou teaches the executing determines to instruct the vehicle motion control system to execute a brake assistance operation (S145 into S190, see at least fig 13 brake control .25G – 0.5G) as the collision-avoidance assistance operation upon determination that a brake operation as the collision-avoidance operations has been carried out (s160 no) by the at least one occupant since the issuance of the notification related to the collision possibility (Gokan as modified with Katou’s notification).
In Re 5, Gokan in view of Katou teaches the executing determines to instruct the vehicle motion control system to execute the collision-avoidance assistance operation upon determination that the obstacle having the collision possibility is not the low-height object (levels 1-3 are not low height obstacle and require collision avoidance assistance).
In Re 8, Gokan in view of Katou, Katou teaches the executing changes the notification related to the collision possibility in accordance with which of predetermined types the obstacle having the collision possibility has (para 37 teaches displaying information about the other vehicle traveling information and environment information, such as light vehicle moving or stopped, including display or a berm, or a dump truck paras 74,155-159, see paras 120-127).
In Re 12-13, the non-transitory storage medium and control apparatus of claims 12-13 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Gokan in view of Katou as described above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7,9-11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious
determining whether the obstacle having the collision possibility is the low-height object by determining whether a height of the obstacle being likely to collide with the vehicle is greater than or equal to a first threshold height and smaller than or equal to a second threshold height that is greater than the first threshold height, the determining whether the obstacle having the collision possibility is the low-height object determines that the obstacle having the collision possibility is the low-height object upon determination that the height of the obstacle having the collision possibility is greater than or equal to the first threshold height and smaller than or equal to the second threshold height;
the vehicular system includes a radar sensor and a camera; and the method further comprising: determining whether a ground speed of the obstacle having the collision possibility is more than or equal to a predetermined threshold speed upon determination that the obstacle having the collision possibility is detected by only the radar sensor, and wherein: the determining to instruct the notification system instructs the notification system to issue the notification related to the collision possibility upon determination that the ground speed of the obstacle having the collision possibility is more than or equal to the predetermined threshold speed; and the executing determines, upon determination that the ground speed of the obstacle having the collision possibility is more than or equal to the predetermined threshold speed, to instruct the vehicle motion control system to issue the notification related to the collision possibility upon determination that no collision-avoidance operations have been carried out by the at least one occupant since the issuance of the notification related to the collision possibility;
in combination with the other claim limitations.
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 CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 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 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747