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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kawamata et al [EP 3021305 A2].
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
As for claim 1, Kawamata discloses an alert device including a notification device, a target information acquisition device that acquires information on targets around an own vehicle, and an electronic control unit configured to operate the notification device to provide an alert (Fig. 1) when the electronic control unit judges that there is a possibility of collision between the own vehicle and another vehicle based on the information on targets acquired by the target information acquisition device (paragraphs 0005-0006), wherein
the electronic control unit is configured to acquire information on an intersection ahead of the own vehicle, to set a possibility judgment area that extends within an intersecting road that intersects with the own vehicle's road (paragraphs 0034 and 0041), and
to judge whether or not there is a possibility of collision by judging whether or not there is another vehicle approaching the possibility judgment area (paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0020, and 0068), and
further, the electronic control unit is configured to set a length of the possibility judgment area variably according to at least one of turning direction of the own vehicle at the intersection, a lane configuration of the intersecting road, and a width of a lane of the intersecting road (paragraphs 0005-0006).
Kawamata does not specifically disclose that the possibility judgement area extends along the intersecting road; and the width direction range of the possibility judgement area is variably set. However, the setting of the possibility is viewed as a matter of engineering preference that would be left to the artisan. The artisan would have had good reason to try adjusting the size/dimensions of the possibility judgement area in order to yield an appropriate alert to the driver.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As for claim 2, Kawamata discloses that the electronic control unit is configured to set the width direction range of the possibility judgment area to a full width range of the intersecting road when the own vehicle is turning right at an intersection on left-hand traffic road or turning left at an intersection on right-hand traffic road (Fig. 2B, 5B, paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0044).
As for claim 3, Kawamata discloses that the electronic control unit is configured to set the width direction range of the possibility judgment area to a full width range of the intersecting road when the own vehicle is turning left at an intersection on a left-hand traffic road or turning right at an intersection on a right-hand traffic road and there is no center line on the intersecting road (Fig 9, 17A, paragraphs 0105, 0151, and 0152).
Claims 8 and 9 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamata et al as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Pfadler et al [US 20200324762 A1].
As for claim 4, Kawamata does not specifically disclose setting the width direction range of the possibility judgement area to a sum of a width direction lane in which the own vehicle is estimated to travel after turning and a width direction range of an adjacent lane. In an analogous art, Pfadler discloses that an electronic control unit is configured to set the width direction range of the possibility judgment area to a sum of a width direction range of a lane in which the own vehicle is estimated to travel after turning and a width direction range of an adjacent lane, when the own vehicle is turning left at an intersection on a left-hand traffic road or turning right at an intersection on a right-hand traffic road and the intersecting road is a multi-lane road with multiple lanes on each side (paragraphs 0008, 0009, 0016, 0025-0031 and 0054-0057). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Kawamata to include the teachings of Pfadler in order to yield the predictable results of a system wherein the possibility judgement area could be set to a desirable size. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to pursue the known options for adjusting the possibility judgement area that were within his/her technical grasps at the time of filing the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited references discloses vehicle alert and intersection collision warning systems that were known in the art at the time of filing the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, Quan Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685