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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 10/23/2024. Accordingly, claims 1-5 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-3 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. The following language in the claims below are not clearly understood, as such they render the claims indefinite:
As per claim 1: the claim recites “a controller configured to start a first operation for avoidance of collision between a host vehicle and a target, when a first condition, that is satisfied when a likelihood that the host vehicle will collide with the target is high, is satisfied, wherein: changing the first condition to a first early-satisfied condition that is a condition that is satisfied earlier than when the particular state is not occurring…”; it is unclear what the claim is reciting—perhaps a machine translation issue? It is unclear what how to distinguish between the first condition and a first early-satisfied condition; for purposes of examination the examiner will interpret this to mean that the controller will revert to a state before the particular state.
As per claims 2-3: they depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for having the same deficiencies as those presented above with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2009214764 (hereinafter 764) in view of JP2008204107 (hereinafter 107).
As per claim 1, 764 discloses: a collision avoidance assistance device for a vehicle, the collision avoidance assistance device comprising:
a controller configured to start a first operation for avoidance of collision between a host vehicle and a target, when a first condition, that is satisfied when a likelihood that the host vehicle will collide with the target is high (see 764 at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1, 6-7 & Tech-problem; collision avoidance and collision possibility determination unit), is satisfied, wherein:
the controller is configured to, change the first condition to a first early-satisfied condition that is a condition that is satisfied earlier (see 764 at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1, 6-7 & Tech-problem; collision avoidance, collision possibility determination unit and braking for pedestrians or other vehicles).
However, 764 does not appear to explicitly disclose performing the above operation(s) when a particular state is occurring, and the particular state includes at least one state of a state in which a user of the host vehicle is presumed to be performing an operation on in-vehicle equipment installed in the host vehicle, a state in which the user is performing a call using the in-vehicle equipment and a mobile device that is communicably connected to the in-vehicle equipment, and a state in which the mobile device communicably connected to the in-vehicle equipment is receiving an incoming signal.
Nevertheless, 107 who is in the same field of endeavor discloses performing the above operation(s) when a particular state is occurring, and the particular state includes at least one state of a state in which a user of the host vehicle is presumed to be performing an operation on in-vehicle equipment installed in the host vehicle, a state in which the user is performing a call using the in-vehicle equipment and a mobile device that is communicably connected to the in-vehicle equipment, and a state in which the mobile device communicably connected to the in-vehicle equipment is receiving an incoming signal (see 107 at least fig. 1-11 & Abstract and Technical-field; carelessness warning device, pre-crash safety system, careless detection device).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention would have been motivated to combine 107’s carelessness detection system with 764’s collision avoidance system in order to form a safer and better user experience (i.e., by determining the attentiveness level of the driver and warning them accordingly).
Motivation to combine 764 with 107 not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from 764 (see Tech problem and solution).
Both 764 and 107 disclose claim 2: wherein the controller is configured to perform an operation of generating an alarm to a driver of the host vehicle as the first operation, and also is configured not to change the first condition to the first early-satisfied condition even when the particular state occurs, when the target is neither a two-wheeled vehicle nor a pedestrian (see 764 at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1, 6-7 & Tech-problem; collision avoidance braking for pedestrians or other vehicles).
Both 764 and 107 disclose claim 3: wherein the controller is configured to, when a second condition is satisfied, execute automatic braking for avoidance of collision of the host vehicle and the target, the second condition being satisfied when a likelihood of the host vehicle colliding with the target becomes higher than when the first condition is satisfied, and when the particular state is occurring, change the second condition to a second early-satisfied condition, that is a condition that is satisfied earlier than a case in which the particular state is not occurring, regardless of type of the target (see 764 at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1, 6-7 & Tech-problem; collision avoidance, identifying obstacle type, braking for pedestrians or other vehicles).
As per claim 4: a collision avoidance assistance method for a vehicle, the collision avoidance assistance method comprising:
starting a first operation for avoidance of a collision between a host vehicle and a target, when a first condition that is satisfied when a likelihood that the host vehicle will collide with the target is high, is satisfied (see 764 at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1, 6-7 & Tech-problem; collision avoidance and collision possibility determination unit); and
when a particular state is occurring, changing the first condition to a condition that is satisfied earlier than when the particular state is not occurring (see 764 at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1, 6-7 & Tech-problem; collision avoidance, collision possibility determination unit and braking for pedestrians or other vehicles),
wherein the particular state includes at least one state of a state in which a user of the host vehicle is presumed to be performing an operation on in-vehicle equipment installed in the host vehicle, a state in which the user is performing a call using the in-vehicle equipment and a mobile device that is communicably connected to the in-vehicle equipment, and a state in which the mobile device communicably connected to the in-vehicle equipment is receiving an incoming signal (see 107 at least fig. 1-11 & Abstract and Technical-field; carelessness warning device, pre-crash safety system, careless detection device).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention would have been motivated to combine 107’s carelessness detection system with 764’s collision avoidance system in order to form a safer and better user experience (i.e., by determining the attentiveness level of the driver and warning them accordingly).
Motivation to combine 764 with 107 not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from 764 (see Tech problem and solution).
As per claim 5: A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executed by a computer installed in a host vehicle, the program causing the computer to execute:
starting a first operation for avoidance of a collision between the host vehicle and a target, when a first condition that is satisfied when a likelihood that the host vehicle will collide with the target is high, is satisfied (see 764 at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1, 6-7 & Tech-problem; collision avoidance and collision possibility determination unit); and
when a particular state is occurring, changing the first condition to a condition that is satisfied earlier than when the particular state is not occurring, wherein the particular state includes at least one state of a state in which a user of the host vehicle is presumed to be performing an operation on in-vehicle equipment installed in the host vehicle (see 764 at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1, 6-7 & Tech-problem; collision avoidance, collision possibility determination unit and braking for pedestrians or other vehicles),
a state in which the user is performing a call using the in-vehicle equipment and a mobile device that is communicably connected to the in-vehicle equipment, and a state in which the mobile device communicably connected to the in-vehicle equipment is receiving an incoming signal (see 107 at least fig. 1-11 & Abstract and Technical-field; carelessness warning device, pre-crash safety system, careless detection device).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention would have been motivated to combine 107’s carelessness detection system with 764’s collision avoidance system in order to form a safer and better user experience (i.e., by determining the attentiveness level of the driver and warning them accordingly).
Motivation to combine 764 with 107 not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from 764 (see Tech problem and solution).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-9:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
MACEEH . ANWARI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3663
/MACEEH ANWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663