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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 and similarly claim 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 7, line 5, “own vehicle 40;” should be read “own vehicle.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-6, 8-13, 15, and 17 are 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.
Regarding claim 5 and similarly claims 8, 15, and 17 it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “an area in which detection by the radar-wave transceiver is hard.” As claimed the term “hard” is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The claimed term “hard” recites relative terminology in the form of subjective terminology and lacks a claimed standard for measuring the term of degree. Review of the specification reveals on page 28 “The hard-to-detect area according to the second embodiment is defined as an area in which it is hard for the radar devices 10 to detect one or more objects due to the size of the trailer 4”, but the specification does not appear to provide an explicit objective standard for determining what constitutes “an area in which it is hard for the radar devices to detect one or more objects” such that the public may determine the scope of the claim. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “hard.”
Regarding claim 6 and similarly claim 12 it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “a detection range of a detection device.” As claimed the phrase “a detection device” is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed phrase cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear if the detection device of claim 6 differs from the “radio-wave transceiver” or “surroundings monitoring apparatus” disclosed in independent claim 1. Review of the specification reveals at page 18, “If one or more other detection devices, such as an ultrasonic sensor, are mounted to the own vehicle 4,”, but does not provide any explicit clarification regarding the detection device of claim 6. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “detection device.” For examination purposes “a detection range of a detection device” will be interpreted to refer to the range of the claimed radio-wave transceiver.
Regarding claim 6 and similarly claim 12 it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “even when the rearward side object, which has been determined to be a ghost, moves outside the detection range of the detection device.” As claimed the limitation is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. As the detected object of claim 6 is established as a ghost object, it is a non-corporeal virtual detection. It is unclear how a virtual detection resulting from multipath interference may physically travel outside of a sensors range. Review of the specification reveals at page 42, “even when the rearward side object, which has been determined to be a ghost, moves outside the detection range of the detection device, continue determination that the rearward side object is a ghost”, but does not provide further clarification on the limitation. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “the detection range.” For examination purposes the above limitation will be interpreted to indicate that the ghost classification is persistent regardless of location.
Claims 9-13 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Independent claims 1, 8, and 14-17 comprise preambles being directed to a step of “recognizing.” The term “recognize” implies a step of object identification or categorization beyond simple presence detection. Each independent claim further discloses steps of data collection and analysis; however, a “recognizing” step is absent from the claims. As the claims do not recite the aforementioned “recognizing” step and do not further recite steps directed to producing a tangible end result, the claims therefore omit the essential step. The dependent claims do not further recite the above essential step and are therefore additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-7 and 9-13 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claims 1 and 8 (and respective dependents) recites a surroundings monitoring apparatus. The claims therefore recite a product.
Claims 14 and 15 (and respective dependents) recites a processor program product. The claims therefore recite a product.
Claims 16 and 17 (and respective dependents) recites a surroundings monitoring method. The claims therefore recite a process.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 and similarly claims 14, and 16 recite,
A surroundings monitoring apparatus for recognizing, […] a rearward side object located behind and to a right or left side of an own vehicle
This limitation is a step that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of recognizing an object. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
a first determiner configured to determine whether an object is located at least in front of or on a right or left side of the own vehicle;
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination regarding location. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
a second determiner configured to determine whether a towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle, the towed vehicle being coupled with the own vehicle, the towed vehicle having a front end and a rear end;
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination regarding location. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
a third determiner configured to, in response to determination that (i) the object is located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle and (ii) the towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle determine, based on a positional relationship between the object determined by the first determiner and the towed vehicle determined by the second determiner, whether the rearward side object is a ghost due to the object determined by the first determiner and the towed vehicle determined by the second determiner
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind making a determination. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
the first determiner is configured to determine whether an object is located in the searching area established by the searching area establishing unit.
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination regarding location. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 2 and similarly claim 9 recites,
the third determiner is configured to determine, in response to determination that the rearward side object is located in the ghost determination area, that the rearward side object is a ghost.
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 4 recites,
the third determiner is configured to determine, in response to determination that the relative speed of the rearward side object is within a predetermined range, that the rearward side object is a ghost
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 5 recites,
the third determiner is configured to cause the rearward side object to be more likely to be determined as a ghost in a first case where the rearward side object is located in the hard-to-detect area as compared with a second case where the rearward side object is located outside the hard-to-detect area.
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 6 and similarly claim 12 recites,
the first determiner is configured to determine, based on a detection range of a detection device acquired from the detection device, whether an object is located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle;
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
the third determiner is configured to, even when the rearward side object, which has been determined to be a ghost, moves outside the detection range of the detection device, continue determination that the rearward side object is a ghost
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 7 and similarly claim 13 recites,
an output unit configured to output: a first signal for execution of one or more collision inhibition operations that inhibit a collision of the own vehicle 40 with the rearward side object;
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of organizing human activity. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
a second signal for reducing execution of the one or more collision inhibition operations against the rearward side object in response to determination that the rearward side object is a ghost.
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of organizing human activity. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Claim 8 and similarly claims 15, and 17 recite,
A surroundings monitoring apparatus for recognizing, based on detection information acquired from a radio-wave transceiver, a rearward side object located behind and to a right or left side of an own vehicle,
This limitation is a step that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of recognizing an object. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
a first determiner configured to determine whether an object is located at least in front of or on a right or left side of the own vehicle;
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination regarding location. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
a second determiner configured to determine whether a towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle, the towed vehicle being coupled with the own vehicle, the towed vehicle having a front end and a rear end;
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination regarding location. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
a third determiner configured to, in response to determination that (i) the object is located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle and (ii) the towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle, determine, based on a positional relationship between the object determined by the first determiner and the towed vehicle determined by the second determiner, whether the rearward side object is a ghost due to the object determined by the first determiner and the towed vehicle determined by the second determiner
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind making a determination. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
the third determiner is configured to cause the rearward side object to be more likely to be determined as a ghost in a first case where the rearward side object is located in the hard-to-detect area as compared with a second case where the rearward side object is located outside the hard-to-detect area.
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination regarding location. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 11 recites,
the first determiner being configured to determine whether an object is located in the searching area established by the searching area establishing unit,
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination regarding location. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
the third determiner being configured to determine, in response to determination that the rearward side object is located in the ghost determination area, that the rearward side object is a ghost.
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 and similarly claims 14, and 16 also recite,
detection information acquired from a radio-wave transceiver
Acquiring data from a radio-wave transceiver is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
the radio-wave transceiver having a detection range located behind and to the right or left side of the own vehicle,
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
and a searching area establishing unit configured to establish an object searching area located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle in accordance with: (i) a position of the radio-wave transceiver; (ii) at least one of a position of each of left and right edges of the front end of the towed vehicle and a position of each of left and right edges of the rear end of the towed vehicle; and (iii) an angle of the towed vehicle tilted to a traveling direction of the own vehicle,
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 2 and similarly claim 9 also recites,
a determination area establishing unit configured to establish, based on the positional relationship between the object determined by the first determiner and the towed vehicle determined by the second determiner, a ghost determination area in which determination of whether the rearward side object is a ghost is carried ghost
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 3 and similarly claim 10 also recites,
the determination area establishing unit is configured to establish the ghost determination area in accordance with information on at least one of a size and a speed of the object determined by the first determiner.
This limitation merely describes manipulating gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 4 also recites,
a relative speed acquisition unit configured to acquire a relative speed of the rearward side object relative to the own vehicle
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 5 also recites,
a hard-to-detect area establishing unit configured to establish a hard-to-detect area defined as an area in which detection by the radar-wave transceiver is hard,
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 8 and similarly claims 15, and 17 also recite,
detection information acquired from a radio-wave transceiver
Acquiring data from a radio-wave transceiver is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
the radio-wave transceiver having a detection range located behind and to the right or left side of the own vehicle,
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
and a hard-to-detect area establishing unit configured to establish a hard-to-detect area defined as an area in which detection by the radar-wave transceiver is hard
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 11 also recites,
a searching area establishing unit configured to establish an object searching area located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle in accordance with: (i) a position of the radio-wave transceiver; (ii) at least one of a position of each of left and right edges of the front end of the towed vehicle and a position of each of left and right edges of the rear end of the towed vehicle; and (iii) an angle of the towed vehicle tilted to a traveling direction of the own vehicle,
This limitation merely describes how and where data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 1 and similarly claims 14, and 16 also recite,
detection information acquired from a radio-wave transceiver
Acquiring data from a radio-wave transceiver is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
the radio-wave transceiver having a detection range located behind and to the right or left side of the own vehicle,
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
and a searching area establishing unit configured to establish an object searching area located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle in accordance with: (i) a position of the radio-wave transceiver; (ii) at least one of a position of each of left and right edges of the front end of the towed vehicle and a position of each of left and right edges of the rear end of the towed vehicle; and (iii) an angle of the towed vehicle tilted to a traveling direction of the own vehicle,
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 2 and similarly claim 9 also recites,
a determination area establishing unit configured to establish, based on the positional relationship between the object determined by the first determiner and the towed vehicle determined by the second determiner, a ghost determination area in which determination of whether the rearward side object is a ghost is carried ghost
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 3 and similarly claim 10 also recites,
the determination area establishing unit is configured to establish the ghost determination area in accordance with information on at least one of a size and a speed of the object determined by the first determiner.
This limitation merely describes manipulating gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 4 also recites,
a relative speed acquisition unit configured to acquire a relative speed of the rearward side object relative to the own vehicle
This limitation merely describes gathering data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 5 also recites,
a hard-to-detect area establishing unit configured to establish a hard-to-detect area defined as an area in which detection by the radar-wave transceiver is hard,
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 8 and similarly claims 15, and 17 also recite,
detection information acquired from a radio-wave transceiver
Acquiring data from a radio-wave transceiver is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
the radio-wave transceiver having a detection range located behind and to the right or left side of the own vehicle,
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
and a hard-to-detect area establishing unit configured to establish a hard-to-detect area defined as an area in which detection by the radar-wave transceiver is hard
This limitation merely describes how data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 11 also recites,
a searching area establishing unit configured to establish an object searching area located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle in accordance with: (i) a position of the radio-wave transceiver; (ii) at least one of a position of each of left and right edges of the front end of the towed vehicle and a position of each of left and right edges of the rear end of the towed vehicle; and (iii) an angle of the towed vehicle tilted to a traveling direction of the own vehicle,
This limitation merely describes how and where data is gathered, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claims 14 and similarly claim 15 further recites,
processor program product including: a non-transitory storage medium readable by a processor
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
control program instructions stored in the non-transitory storage medium,
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
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 1-6, 8-12, and 14-17are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUKAWA (JP2020197506A) in view of Chen(US20220043157A1)
Regarding claim 1, YUKAWA discloses
A surroundings monitoring apparatus for recognizing, based on detection information acquired from a radio-wave transceiver (“The radar device 10, a driving environment detection device 20, and a radar status monitoring device 30” [0014]), a rearward side object located behind and to a right or left side of an own vehicle (“a radar wave is transmitted from the radar unit 11 at the rear of the vehicle Cs, this radar wave is reflected by the first object (following vehicle) OBJ1” [0029]), the radio-wave transceiver having a detection range located behind and to the right or left side of the own vehicle (“The radar unit 11 is, for example, located at the left and right corners of the front and rear bumpers of the vehicle.” [0016]), the surroundings monitoring apparatus comprising: a first determiner configured to determine whether an object is located at least in front of or on a right or left side of the own vehicle (“three dimensional recognition of the road lanes, obstacles, and vehicles traveling in front of the vehicle” [0024]); […]; a third determiner configured to, in response to determination that (i) the object is located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle […], whether the rearward side object is a ghost due to the object determined by the first determiner and the […] vehicle determined by the second determiner (“The first ghost determination unit 32, if the reflection point determination unit 31 determines that a reflection point exists and further detects a second object following the first object, determines […]based on the relative velocity of the reflection point with respect to the vehicle, the relative velocity of the first object with respect to the vehicle, and the relative velocity of the second object with respect to the vehicle” [0032]); and a searching area establishing unit configured to establish an object searching area located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle (“Figure 4 shows an example of the process when the radar unit 11 monitors the area behind the vehicle, but the process is similar when monitoring the area in front” [0041]) in accordance with: (i) a position of the radio-wave transceiver (“The radar unit 11 combines or integrates a transmitting antenna that radiates radar transmission waves into space and a receiving antenna that receives reflected waves that have been reflected back by objects” [0016]); […] wherein: the first determiner is configured to determine whether an object is located in the searching area established by the searching area establishing unit vehicle (“three dimensional recognition of the road lanes, obstacles, and vehicles traveling in front of the vehicle” [0024])
YUKAWA does not appear to explicitly disclose a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle. Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. Chen discloses, a second determiner configured to determine whether a towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle (“The method may further include using a set of the return signals to estimate trailer orientation of the articulating vehicle.” [0005]), the towed vehicle being coupled with the own vehicle, the towed vehicle having a front end and a rear end (“the truck includes a tractor unit 152 and a single cargo unit or trailer 154.” [0024]) and (ii) the towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle, determine, based on a positional relationship between the object determined by the first determiner and the towed vehicle determined by the second determiner (“ identify the received point as a self-return point” [0008]) (ii) at least one of a position of each of left and right edges of the front end of the towed vehicle and a position of each of left and right edges of the rear end of the towed vehicle (FIG.4B, Part.426); and (iii) an angle of the towed vehicle tilted to a traveling direction of the own vehicle (“Turning angle information may be used” [0066]).
Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YUKAWA with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle so as to gain the advantage reducing the likelihood of false object detection [0073, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, YUKAWA as modified by Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1. YUKAWA discloses, a determination area establishing unit configured to establish, based on the positional relationship between the object determined by the first determiner and the towed vehicle determined by the second determiner, a ghost determination area in which determination of whether the rearward side object is a ghost is carried out, (“The second ghost condition primarily involves lane conditions where the second object is located in a drivable area, such as an adjacent lane to the vehicle's lane; distance conditions relating to the distance between the reflection point, the vehicle, the first object, and the second object” [0035]) wherein: the third determiner is configured to determine, in response to determination that the rearward side object is located in the ghost determination area, that the rearward side object is a ghost (“if there is no adjacent lane or if the second object OBJ2 is outside the adjacent lane (lane condition not met), the second ghost determination unit 33 determines that the second ghost condition is met and that the second object OBJ2 is a ghost” [0036])
Regarding claim 3, YUKAWA as modified by Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 2. YUKAWA discloses, the determination area establishing unit is configured to establish the ghost determination area in accordance with information on at least one of a size and a speed of the object determined by the first determiner (“obtains the position of the rear approaching object (distance from the vehicle to the rear approaching object) and the relative velocity of the rear approaching object with respect to the vehicle from the radar unit 11” [0044]).
Regarding claim 4, YUKAWA as modified by Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1. YUKAWA discloses, a relative speed acquisition unit configured to acquire a relative speed of the rearward side object relative to the own vehicle (“millimeter waves as radar transmission waves and detects the relative speed, distance, and direction of objects in the vicinity of the vehicle” [0015]), wherein: the third determiner is configured to determine, in response to determination that the relative speed of the rearward side object is within a predetermined range, that the rearward side object is a ghost (“provisionally designates the second object as a ghost, is met, based on the relative velocity of the reflection points with respect to the vehicle” [0049])
Regarding claim 5, YUKAWA as modified by Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1. YUKAWA discloses, a hard-to-detect area establishing unit configured to establish a hard-to-detect area defined as an area in which detection by the radar-wave transceiver is hard (“The second ghost condition primarily involves lane conditions where the second object is located in a drivable area, such as an adjacent lane to the vehicle's lane” [0035]), wherein: the third determiner is configured to cause the rearward side object to be more likely to be determined as a ghost in a first case where the rearward side object is located in the hard-to-detect area as compared with a second case where the rearward side object is located outside the hard-to-detect area (“On the other hand, if there is no adjacent lane or if the second object OBJ2 is outside the adjacent lane (lane condition not met), the second ghost determination unit 33 determines that the second ghost condition is met and that the second object OBJ2 is a ghost” [0036])
Regarding claim 6, YUKAWA as modified by Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1. YUKAWA discloses the first determiner is configured to determine, based on a detection range of a detection device acquired from the detection device, whether an object is located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle (“an object within the radar beam scanning range is detected with each of the one or two or more radar beam scans” [0005]); and the third determiner is configured to, even when the rearward side object, which has been determined to be a ghost, moves outside the detection range of the detection device, continue determination that the rearward side object is a ghost(“On the other hand, if there is no adjacent lane or if the second object OBJ2 is outside the adjacent lane (lane condition not met), the second ghost determination unit 33 determines that the second ghost condition is met and that the second object OBJ2 is a ghost” [0036])
Regarding claim 8, YUKAWA
A surroundings monitoring apparatus for recognizing, based on detection information acquired from a radio-wave transceiver (“The radar device 10, a driving environment detection device 20, and a radar status monitoring device 30” [0014]), a rearward side object located behind and to a right or left side of an own vehicle (“a radar wave is transmitted from the radar unit 11 at the rear of the vehicle Cs, this radar wave is reflected by the first object (following vehicle) OBJ1” [0029]), the radio-wave transceiver having a detection range located behind and to the right or left side of the own vehicle (“The radar unit 11 is, for example, located at the left and right corners of the front and rear bumpers of the vehicle.” [0016]), the surroundings monitoring apparatus comprising: a first determiner configured to determine whether an object is located at least in front of or on a right or left side of the own vehicle(“three dimensional recognition of the road lanes, obstacles, and vehicles traveling in front of the vehicle” [0024]); […]; a third determiner configured to, in response to determination that (i) the object is located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle and (ii) […] whether the rearward side object is a ghost due to the object determined by the first determiner and the towed vehicle determined by the second determiner (“The first ghost determination unit 32, if the reflection point determination unit 31 determines that a reflection point exists and further detects a second object following the first object, determines […]based on the relative velocity of the reflection point with respect to the vehicle, the relative velocity of the first object with respect to the vehicle, and the relative velocity of the second object with respect to the vehicle” [0032]); and a hard-to-detect area establishing unit configured to establish a hard-to-detect area defined as an area in which detection by the radar-wave transceiver is hard (“The second ghost condition primarily involves lane conditions where the second object is located in a drivable area, such as an adjacent lane to the vehicle's lane” [0035]),, wherein: the third determiner is configured to cause the rearward side object to be more likely to be determined as a ghost in a first case where the rearward side object is located in the hard-to-detect area as compared with a second case where the rearward side object is located outside the hard-to-detect area (“On the other hand, if there is no adjacent lane or if the second object OBJ2 is outside the adjacent lane (lane condition not met), the second ghost determination unit 33 determines that the second ghost condition is met and that the second object OBJ2 is a ghost” [0036])
YUKAWA does not appear to explicitly disclose a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle. Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. Chen discloses, a second determiner configured to determine whether a towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle(“method may further include using a set of the return signals to estimate trailer orientation of the articulating vehicle.” [0005]), the towed vehicle being coupled with the own vehicle, the towed vehicle having a front end and a rear end […]the towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle end (“the truck includes a tractor unit 152 and a single cargo unit or trailer 154.” [0024], determine, based on a positional relationship between the object determined by the first determiner and the towed vehicle determined by the second determiner (“Turning angle information may be used” [0066]).
Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YUKAWA with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle so as to gain the advantage reducing the likelihood of false object detection [0073, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9, YUKAWA as modified by Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 8. YUKAWA discloses, a determination area establishing unit configured to establish, based on the positional relationship between the object determined by the first determiner and the towed vehicle determined by the second determiner, a ghost determination area in which determination of whether the rearward side object is a ghost is carried out (“The second ghost condition primarily involves lane conditions where the second object is located in a drivable area, such as an adjacent lane to the vehicle's lane; distance conditions relating to the distance between the reflection point, the vehicle, the first object, and the second object” [0035]), wherein: the third determiner is configured to determine, in response to determination that the rearward side object is located in the ghost determination area, that the rearward side object is a ghost (“if there is no adjacent lane or if the second object OBJ2 is outside the adjacent lane (lane condition not met), the second ghost determination unit 33 determines that the second ghost condition is met and that the second object OBJ2 is a ghost” [0036])
Regarding claim 10, YUKAWA as modified by Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 9. YUKAWA discloses, the determination area establishing unit is configured to establish the ghost determination area in accordance with information on at least one of a size and a speed of the object determined by the first determiner (“obtains the position of the rear approaching object (distance from the vehicle to the rear approaching object) and the relative velocity of the rear approaching object with respect to the vehicle from the radar unit 11” [0044]).
Regarding claim 11, YUKAWA as modified by Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 8. YUKAWA discloses, a searching area establishing unit configured to establish an object searching area located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle in accordance (“Figure 4 shows an example of the process when the radar unit 11 monitors the area behind the vehicle, but the process is similar when monitoring the area in front” [0041]) i with: (i) a position of the radio-wave transceiver (“The radar unit 11 combines or integrates a transmitting antenna that radiates radar transmission waves into space and a receiving antenna that receives reflected waves that have been reflected back by objects” [0016]); […];the first determiner being configured to determine whether an object is located in the searching area established by the searching area establishing unit, the third determiner being configured to determine (“three dimensional recognition of the road lanes, obstacles, and vehicles traveling in front of the vehicle” [0024]), in response to determination that the rearward side object is located in the ghost determination area, that the rearward side object is a ghost (“The second ghost condition primarily involves lane conditions where the second object is located in a drivable area, such as an adjacent lane to the vehicle's lane; distance conditions relating to the distance between the reflection point, the vehicle, the first object, and the second object” [0035])
YUKAWA does not appear to explicitly disclose a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle. Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. Chen discloses,(ii) at least one of a position of each of left and right edges of the front end of the towed vehicle and a position of each of left and right edges of the rear end of the towed vehicle (“the truck includes a tractor unit 152 and a single cargo unit or trailer 154.” [0024]) and (iii) an angle of the towed vehicle tilted to a traveling direction of the own vehicle (“Turning angle information may be used” [0066]).
Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YUKAWA with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle so as to gain the advantage reducing the likelihood of false object detection [0073, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12, YUKAWA as modified by Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 8. YUKAWA discloses, the first determiner is configured to determine, based on a detection range of a detection device acquired from the detection device, whether an object is located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle (“an object within the radar beam scanning range is detected with each of the one or two or more radar beam scans” [0005]); and the third determiner is configured to, even when the rearward side object, which has been determined to be a ghost, moves outside the detection range of the detection device, continue determination that the rearward side object is a ghost (“On the other hand, if there is no adjacent lane or if the second object OBJ2 is outside the adjacent lane (lane condition not met), the second ghost determination unit 33 determines that the second ghost condition is met and that the second object OBJ2 is a ghost” [0036]).
Regarding claim 14, YUKAWA discloses
A processor program product including: a non-transitory storage medium readable by a processor for recognizing, based on detection information acquired from a radio-wave transceiver(“The radar device 10, a driving environment detection device 20, and a radar status monitoring device 30” [0014]), a rearward side object located behind and to a right or left side of an own vehicle (“a radar wave is transmitted from the radar unit 11 at the rear of the vehicle Cs, this radar wave is reflected by the first object (following vehicle) OBJ1” [0029]), the radio-wave transceiver having a detection range located behind and to the right or left side of the own vehicle (“The radar unit 11 is, for example, located at the left and right corners of the front and rear bumpers of the vehicle.” [0016]); and control program instructions stored in the non-transitory storage medium, the control program instructions cause the processor to: perform a first determination step of determining whether an object is located at least in front of or on a right or left side of the own vehicle (“three dimensional recognition of the road lanes, obstacles, and vehicles traveling in front of the vehicle” [0024]); […]; determine, in response to determination that (i) the object is located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle […], whether the rearward side object is a ghost due to the object determined by the first determination step […] vehicle determined by the second determination step(“The first ghost determination unit 32, if the reflection point determination unit 31 determines that a reflection point exists and further detects a second object following the first object, determines […]based on the relative velocity of the reflection point with respect to the vehicle, the relative velocity of the first object with respect to the vehicle, and the relative velocity of the second object with respect to the vehicle” [0032]); and establish an object searching area located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle (“Figure 4 shows an example of the process when the radar unit 11 monitors the area behind the vehicle, but the process is similar when monitoring the area in front” [0041]) in accordance with: (i) a position of the radio-wave transceiver(“The radar unit 11 combines or integrates a transmitting antenna that radiates radar transmission waves into space and a receiving antenna that receives reflected waves that have been reflected back by objects” [0016]); […], wherein the first determination step is configured to determine whether an object is located in the established searching area (“three dimensional recognition of the road lanes, obstacles, and vehicles traveling in front of the vehicle” [0024])
YUKAWA does not appear to explicitly disclose a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle. Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. Chen discloses, perform a second determination step of determining whether a towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle(“the method may further include using a set of the return signals to estimate trailer orientation of the articulating vehicle.” [0005]), the towed vehicle being coupled with the own vehicle(“the truck includes a tractor unit 152 and a single cargo unit or trailer 154.” [0024]), the towed vehicle having a front end and a rear end and (ii) the towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle(“ identify the received point as a self-return point” [0008]) […] ii) at least one of a position of each of left and right edges of the front end of the towed vehicle and a position of each of left and right edges of the rear end of the towed vehicle (FIG.4B, Part.426); and (iii) an angle of the towed vehicle tilted to a traveling direction of the own vehicle (“Turning angle information may be used” [0066]).
Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YUKAWA with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle so as to gain the advantage reducing the likelihood of false object detection [0073, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 15, YUKAWA discloses
A processor program product including: a non-transitory storage medium readable by a processor for recognizing, based on detection information acquired from a radio-wave transceiver (“The radar device 10, a driving environment detection device 20, and a radar status monitoring device 30” [0014]), a rearward side object located behind and to a right or left side of an own vehicle (“a radar wave is transmitted from the radar unit 11 at the rear of the vehicle Cs, this radar wave is reflected by the first object (following vehicle) OBJ1” [0029]), the radio-wave transceiver having a detection range located behind and to the right or left side of the own vehicle (“The radar unit 11 is, for example, located at the left and right corners of the front and rear bumpers of the vehicle.” [0016]); and control program instructions stored in the non-transitory storage medium, the control program instructions cause the processor to: perform a first determination step of determining whether an object is located at least in front of or on a right or left side of the own vehicle(“three dimensional recognition of the road lanes, obstacles, and vehicles traveling in front of the vehicle” [0024]); […]; perform a third determination step of determining, in response to determination that (i) the object is located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle […]whether the rearward side object is a ghost due to the object determined by the first determination step […] determined by the second determination step (“The first ghost determination unit 32, if the reflection point determination unit 31 determines that a reflection point exists and further detects a second object following the first object, determines […]based on the relative velocity of the reflection point with respect to the vehicle, the relative velocity of the first object with respect to the vehicle, and the relative velocity of the second object with respect to the vehicle” [0032]); and establish a hard-to-detect area defined as an area in which detection by the radar-wave transceiver is hard (“The second ghost condition primarily involves lane conditions where the second object is located in a drivable area, such as an adjacent lane to the vehicle's lane” [0035]), wherein: the third determination step is configured to cause the rearward side object to be more likely to be determined as a ghost in a first case where the rearward side object is located in the hard-to-detect area as compared with a second case where the rearward side object is located outside the hard-to-detect area (“On the other hand, if there is no adjacent lane or if the second object OBJ2 is outside the adjacent lane (lane condition not met), the second ghost determination unit 33 determines that the second ghost condition is met and that the second object OBJ2 is a ghost” [0036])
YUKAWA does not appear to explicitly disclose a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle. Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. Chen discloses, perform a second determination step of determining whether a towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle(“The method may further include using a set of the return signals to estimate trailer orientation of the articulating vehicle.” [0005]), the towed vehicle being coupled with the own vehicle, the towed vehicle having a front end and a rear end (“the truck includes a tractor unit 152 and a single cargo unit or trailer 154.” [0024])
and (ii) the towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle, and the towed vehicle determined by the second determination step based on a positional relationship between the object determined by the first determination step and the towed vehicle (“ identify the received point as a self-return point” [0008]).
Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YUKAWA with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle so as to gain the advantage reducing the likelihood of false object detection [0073, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 16, YUKAWA discloses
A surroundings monitoring method of recognizing, based on detection information acquired from a radio-wave transceiver(“The radar device 10, a driving environment detection device 20, and a radar status monitoring device 30” [0014]), a rearward side object located behind and to a right or left side of an own vehicle (“a radar wave is transmitted from the radar unit 11 at the rear of the vehicle Cs, this radar wave is reflected by the first object (following vehicle) OBJ1” [0029]), the radio-wave transceiver having a detection range located behind and to the right or left side of the own vehicle (“The radar unit 11 is, for example, located at the left and right corners of the front and rear bumpers of the vehicle.” [0016]), the surroundings monitoring method comprising: performing a first determination step of determining whether an object is located at least in front of or on a right or left side of the own vehicle(“three dimensional recognition of the road lanes, obstacles, and vehicles traveling in front of the vehicle” [0024]); […] performing a third determination step of determining, in response to determination that (i) the object is located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle […] whether the rearward side object is a ghost due to the object determined by the first determination step […]determined by the second determination step (“The first ghost determination unit 32, if the reflection point determination unit 31 determines that a reflection point exists and further detects a second object following the first object, determines […]based on the relative velocity of the reflection point with respect to the vehicle, the relative velocity of the first object with respect to the vehicle, and the relative velocity of the second object with respect to the vehicle” [0032]); and establishing an object searching area located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle (“Figure 4 shows an example of the process when the radar unit 11 monitors the area behind the vehicle, but the process is similar when monitoring the area in front” [0041]) in accordance with: (i) a position of the radio-wave transceiver (“The radar unit 11 combines or integrates a transmitting antenna that radiates radar transmission waves into space and a receiving antenna that receives reflected waves that have been reflected back by objects” [0016]); […] wherein: the first determination step determines whether an object is located in the searching area established by the searching area establishing unit (“three dimensional recognition of the road lanes, obstacles, and vehicles traveling in front of the vehicle” [0024])
YUKAWA does not appear to explicitly disclose a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle. Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. Chen discloses, performing a second determination step of determining whether a towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle (“the method may further include using a set of the return signals to estimate trailer orientation of the articulating vehicle.” [0005]), the towed vehicle being coupled with the own vehicle, the towed vehicle having a front end and a rear end (“the truck includes a tractor unit 152 and a single cargo unit or trailer 154.” [0024])[…] (ii) the towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle[…]and the towed vehicle determined by the second determination step based on a positional relationship between the object determined by the first determination step and the towed vehicle(“ identify the received point as a self-return point” [0008]) […](ii) at least one of a position of each of left and right edges of the front end of the towed vehicle and a position of each of left and right edges of the rear end of the towed vehicle (FIG.4B, Part.426); and (iii) an angle of the towed vehicle tilted to a traveling direction of the own vehicle (“Turning angle information may be used” [0066]).
Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YUKAWA with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle so as to gain the advantage reducing the likelihood of false object detection [0073, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, YUKAWA discloses
A surroundings monitoring method of recognizing, based on detection information acquired from a radio-wave transceiver (“The radar device 10, a driving environment detection device 20, and a radar status monitoring device 30” [0014]), a rearward side object located behind and to a right or left side of an own vehicle (“a radar wave is transmitted from the radar unit 11 at the rear of the vehicle Cs, this radar wave is reflected by the first object (following vehicle) OBJ1” [0029]), the radio-wave transceiver having a detection range located behind and to the right or left side of the own vehicle (“The radar unit 11 is, for example, located at the left and right corners of the front and rear bumpers of the vehicle.” [0016]), the surroundings monitoring method comprising: performing a first determination step of determining whether an object is located at least in front of or on a right or left side of the own vehicle (“three dimensional recognition of the road lanes, obstacles, and vehicles traveling in front of the vehicle” [0024]; […] performing a third determination step of determining, in response to determination that (i) the object is located at least in front of or on the right or left side of the own vehicle […] whether the rearward side object is a ghost due to the object determined by the first determination step […] determined by the second determination step (“The first ghost determination unit 32, if the reflection point determination unit 31 determines that a reflection point exists and further detects a second object following the first object, determines […]based on the relative velocity of the reflection point with respect to the vehicle, the relative velocity of the first object with respect to the vehicle, and the relative velocity of the second object with respect to the vehicle” [0032]); and establishing a hard-to-detect area defined as an area in which detection by the radar-wave transceiver is hard(“The second ghost condition primarily involves lane conditions where the second object is located in a drivable area, such as an adjacent lane to the vehicle's lane” [0035]), wherein: the third determination step causes the rearward side object to be more likely to be determined as a ghost in a first case where the rearward side object is located in the hard-to-detect area as compared with a second case where the rearward side object is located outside the hard-to-detect area (“On the other hand, if there is no adjacent lane or if the second object OBJ2 is outside the adjacent lane (lane condition not met), the second ghost determination unit 33 determines that the second ghost condition is met and that the second object OBJ2 is a ghost” [0036])
YUKAWA does not appear to explicitly disclose a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle. Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. Chen discloses, performing a second determination step of determining whether a towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle(“the method may further include using a set of the return signals to estimate trailer orientation of the articulating vehicle.” [0005]), the towed vehicle being coupled with the own vehicle, the towed vehicle having a front end and a rear end (“the truck includes a tractor unit 152 and a single cargo unit or trailer 154.” [0024]); […] and (ii) the towed vehicle is located behind the own vehicle,[…]and the towed vehicle determined by the second determination step based on a positional relationship between the object determined by the first determination step and the towed vehicle (“ identify the received point as a self-return point” [0008])
Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YUKAWA with the teachings of Chen to incorporate the features of a towed vehicle located behind the own vehicle and coupled with the own vehicle so as to gain the advantage reducing the likelihood of false object detection [0073, Chen]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUKAWA (JP2020197506A) as modified by Chen(US20220043157A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of KANG (US 20210364600 A1)
Regarding claim 7, YUKAWA as modified by Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1. YUKAWA discloses, an output unit configured to output: a first signal for execution of one or more collision inhibition operations that inhibit a collision of the own vehicle 40 with the rearward side object (“warning control for vehicle sway and lane departure” [0002]);
YUKAWA as modified by Chen do not appear to explicitly disclose a second signal for reducing execution of the one or more collision inhibition operations. KANG teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. KANG discloses, a second signal for reducing execution of the one or more collision inhibition operations against the rearward side object in response to determination that the rearward side object is a ghost (“When it is determined by the ghost tracking target determination unit 123 that the tracking target is the ghost tracking target, the control unit 12 may prevent occurrence of a false warning in the rear cross collision warning system” [0103])
KANG teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YUKAWA as modified by Chen with the teachings of KANG to incorporate the features of a second signal for reducing execution of the one or more collision inhibition operations so as to gain the advantage of improving driver vehicle interaction [0104, KANG]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, YUKAWA as modified by Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 8. YUKAWA discloses, an output unit configured to output: a first signal for execution of one or more collision inhibition operations that inhibit a collision of the own vehicle 40 with the rearward side object; (“warning control for vehicle sway and lane departure” [0002]);
YUKAWA as modified by Chen do not appear to explicitly disclose a second signal for reducing execution of the one or more collision inhibition operations. KANG teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. KANG discloses, and a second signal for reducing execution of the one or more collision inhibition operations against the rearward side object in response to determination that the rearward side object is a ghost (“When it is determined by the ghost tracking target determination unit 123 that the tracking target is the ghost tracking target, the control unit 12 may prevent occurrence of a false warning in the rear cross collision warning system” [0103])
KANG teaches in the same field of endeavor of surroundings monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YUKAWA as modified by Chen with the teachings of KANG to incorporate the features of a second signal for reducing execution of the one or more collision inhibition operations so as to gain the advantage of improving driver vehicle interaction [0104, KANG]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Murakoshi(US 10252704 B2) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [Col.6, ll.48-51] “determination that the towed object 11 is connected to the own vehicle 1, each of the left rear side radar 2L and the right rear side radar 2R may be set at a towing mode.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights