DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 02, 2024. Claims 1 – 2 have been cancelled. Claim 3 is new. Claims 3 is pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 02, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in The Republic of Japan on December 22, 2016.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0233048 A1 to ANDERSSON et al. (herein after "Andersson") in view of Japanese Patent No. JP 2017/182768 A to KURIHARA et al. (herein after "Kurihara").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 3, (New)
Andersson discloses a device (see Figs. 2, 5 - 7, ¶0013, and ¶0017; Andersson; a device 700),
configured to:
detect a target existing in front of a vehicle (see Figs. 2, 5, ¶0035, and ¶0087; Andersson; VRUs 200 may be detected by vehicle 100 cameras 110 positioned in the front and rear of the vehicle);
determine whether a type of said target is pedestrian and said target is in a travel lane of a road in which said vehicle is traveling (see Figs. 4A - 4B and ¶0054; Andersson; sensor 120 detects, analyzes, and classifies targets (objects), and makes determination if targets (objects) are pedestrians (VRUs 200));
execute, in a case where it is determined that said type of said target is a pedestrian and said target is in said travel lane (see Figs. 4A - 4B and ¶0054; Andersson; sensor 120 detects, analyzes, and classifies targets (objects), and makes determination if targets (objects) are pedestrians (VRUs 200)),
at least one of alert control to issue an alert (see Figs. 2, 5, 6 ~ process method step 604, ¶0017 - ¶0018, and ¶0058; Andersson; discloses issuing an audible alert where potential of clash of pedestrian (VRU ~ vulnerable road user) exists with vehicle) and automatic brake control to activate a brake device of said vehicle (see ¶0094-¶0095, ¶0130 and ¶0136; Andersson; discloses wherein control unit 310 detects a probable collision with a disclosed Vulnerable Road User ~ VRU 200 (i.e., a pedestrian, or other living being, etc.) and as a part of probable collision protocol, may further generate control signal instructions to perform a "full brake to standstill" to avoid collision).
While Andersson discusses at least one of said alert control and said automatic brake control (see ¶0090; Andersson; in order intervene and avoid a collision, vehicle 100 applies automatic braking when a pedestrian (VRU) is imminent relative to the position of the vehicle 100), Kurihara likewise discuses “a brake actuator 5 that automatically applies brakes” as taught in ¶0012; Kurihara. Emphasis added.
Kurihara is relied upon to disclose a device teaching when it is determined that a first width orthogonal in a plan view to a traveling direction of said vehicle and a width of said pedestrian overlap (see Figs. 2 - 4, ¶0006-¶0008, and ¶0018; Kurihara; Kurihara discloses a vehicle collision avoidance device teaching wherein a predicted track of a target having a width in a lateral direction that is orthogonal to a vehicle predicted track (driving direction) of an ego vehicle as illustrated particularly in Figs. 2, 4) execute, in a case where it is determined that said type of said target is a pedestrian and said target is not in said travel lane (see Figs. 2, 4, and ¶0064; Kurihara; widths in plan view being orthogonal as illustrated in Figs. 2, 4, where pedestrian (target) is not in said travel lane),
when it is determined that a second width, that is smaller than said first width, orthogonal in a plan view to said traveling direction of said vehicle and said width of said pedestrian overlap. (See Fig. 2, ¶0008, ¶0016, and ¶0020; Kurihara; discloses a proportional enlargement of the vehicle’s predicted track relative to a detected target with customized (curated), extensions of regions respective to the size and type of target (obstacle, i.e., pedestrian, etc.) that is identified. Thus, Kurihara teaches determining that a collision between the own vehicle and a pedestrian is predicted within a predetermined width range smaller than the vehicle width from the center of a region by recognizing a pedestrian crossing the street based on three judgment conditions, teaching wherein a vehicle’s predicted track has a second width smaller than first said width).
Andersson is analogous art to the claimed invention as it relates to pedestrian vehicle collision avoidance system in that it provides proportional enlargement of vehicle predicted track relative to a detected target (pedestrian ~ VRU200 of Andersson). Kurihara is analogous art to the claimed invention as it relates to collision avoidance system in that it provides where a predicted track of a target (i.e. pedestrian, etc.) having a width in a lateral direction that is orthogonal to a vehicle predicted track (driving direction) of an ego vehicle. (See MPEP § 2141.01(a) ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Andersson’s collision avoidance system with the vehicle predicted track calculation, as taught by Kurihara, to provide where vehicle predicted track has a predetermined width orthogonal to a travelling direction of said vehicle, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: pedestrian collision avoidance and/or mitigation; reducing nuisance activation of vehicle safety devices; and more reliable collision avoidance strategies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The Examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661