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 § 102
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by
MASAKAZU et al. (JP 2022094063).
As per claim 1, MASAKAZU et al. disclose control device in a form of a support
system (2, figures 1-6) configured:
to detect a moving body (44, figure 5) present in surroundings of a vehicle (4) entering an assist area (28a) set in the surroundings of the vehicle (see entire document); and
to provide driver assist (display unit, 18) when the moving body enters the assist area from a front part (front left) of the assist area (figure 5) based on the positional relationship between a front end position of the moving body and the vehicle (see entire document).
As per claim 2, MASAKAZU et al. disclose the control device configured to provide driver assist when the front end position of the moving body and the front end
position of the assist area become the same position (figure 5).
As per claim 3, MASAKAZU et al. disclose the control device configured to
provide driver assist when the moving body has completely entered the assist area (figure 8).
As per claim 4, as shown in figure 8, MASAKAZU et al. disclose the control
device configured judge that the moving body has completely entered the assist area
when the front end position of the moving body and the front end position of the assist
area become the same position (see entire document).
As per claim 5, MASAKAZU et al. disclose the control device configured to
provide driver assist when a distance in a vehicle front-back direction between the front
end position of the moving body and the front end position of the assist area becomes
less than or equal to a predetermined distance (see entire document).
As per claim 6, MASAKAZU et al. disclose the front end position of the assist
area is the same position as the front end position of the vehicle (figure 5).
As per claim 7 MASAKAZU et al. disclose the front end position of the assist
area is positioned in a span from the front end position of the vehicle to the eyellipse
reference line set for each vehicle.
As per claim 8, MASAKAZU et al. disclose the control device configured to provide driver assist when the moving body is positioned on the eyellipse reference line (figure 2, when the moving object positioned in a third detection region (28c)).
As per claim 9, MASAKAZU et al. disclose the control device configured to provide driver assist when the front end position of the moving body and the eyellipse
reference line become the same position (a third radar 6c outputs a radio wave toward
the third detection region 28c set on the left side of the vehicle 4, and the radio wave
reflects the reflected wave reflected by the moving body existing in the third detection
region 28c. Upon reception, the target information indicating that the moving body exists
in the third detection area 28c is output to the moving body detection unit 10).
As per claim 10, MASAKAZU et al. disclose the control device configured so as
to provide driver assist when the moving body is positioned at a rear from the eyellipse
reference line (refer to claim 9 above).
As per claim 11, MASAKAZU et al. disclose the control device configured to
judge that the moving body is positioned at the rear from the eyellipse reference line
when the front end position of the moving body and the eyellipse reference line become
the same position (see entire document).
As per claim 12, MASAKAZU et al. disclose the control device configured to, as
driver assist, provide alert notification to the driver through a notification device (display
device 18) for providing notifications to the driver of the vehicle (figure 3).
As per claims 13-14, The method claims and their associated computer program
products claims 13-14 are essentially the same in scope as system claim 1 above and
are rejected similarly.
As per claims 15, 17 and 19, as mentioned in claim 1, the at least one of provide alert notification to a driver through a notification device (display unit, 18, figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Masakazu does not disclose “Providing Driver Assist When a Moving Body Enters the Assist Area "From a Front Part of the Assist Area". This is fundamentally different from entry "from a front part of the assist area" as recited
in claim 1. Examiner does not agree. Masakazu disclose providing assist on the display unit (18, figure 1) when detect a moving body entering from a front left. Therefore, it is still considered as entering from the front part of the assist area.
Applicant argues that Masakazu does not disclose an "Eyellipse Reference Line Set for Each Vehicle". Examiner does not agree. The claims “or based on the positional relationship between the moving body and an eyellipse reference line set for each vehicle”. This limitation is an optional and therefore not need to address in the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAI T. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm.
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-Zhen 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.
/TAI T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights