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 Status
Claims 6-7 have been added. Claims 1-7 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (US 2008/0238056 A1) hereinafter Kobayashi.
Claim 1:
Kobayashi discloses a device for collision mode prediction comprising: a memory storing an instruction; and a processor configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory [¶29] to: acquire position information of a first vehicle [¶30; acquired via GPS 22 and own vehicle information calculating section 211]; acquire position information of a second vehicle, the position information of the second vehicle being information transmitted from the second vehicle via vehicle-to-vehicle communication [¶30; acquired via V2V device 23 and other vehicle information extracting section 212]; in response to collision between the first vehicle and the second vehicle being likely [¶32 via collision predicting section], predict a collision mode between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, based on the position information of the first vehicle and the position information of the second vehicle [¶¶32-34]; and control an airbag of the first vehicle, based on a comparison result between acceleration detected by an acceleration sensor, and a threshold value set in accordance with the predicted collision mode [¶33 via protecting system operation command section 216].
Claim 4:
Kobayashi discloses an occupant protection system comprising: a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver configured to receive a satellite signal based on which position information of a first vehicle is determined [¶30; acquired via GPS 22 and own vehicle information calculating section 211]; a communication interface configured to acquire position information of a second vehicle, the position information of the second vehicle being transmitted from the second vehicle via a vehicle-to-vehicle communication [¶30; acquired via V2V device 23 and other vehicle information extracting section 212]; a controller configured to predict when collision between the first vehicle and the second vehicle is likely [¶32 via collision predicting section], a collision mode between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, based on the position information of the first vehicle and the position information of the second vehicle [¶¶32-34]; and an acceleration sensor that is installed in the first vehicle [¶¶29-27; Fig. 1, Items 17-19]; wherein the control unit is configured to control operation of an airbag of the first vehicle, based on a comparison result between acceleration detected by the acceleration sensor, and a threshold value set in accordance with the predicted collision mode [¶33 via protecting system operation command section 216].
Claim 5:
Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Kobayashi also discloses wherein no acceleration sensor for collision detection is provided in the front portion of the first vehicle other than the acceleration sensor [¶26; sensor 17 is on the front and 18-19 are on the side]
Claim 6:
Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Kobayashi also discloses wherein the device is included in or associated with the first vehicle [¶19; Fig. 1].
Claim 7:
Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Kobayashi also discloses wherein the occupant protection system is included in or associated with the first vehicle [¶19; Fig. 1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2022/0001821 A1) hereinafter Yoshida.
Claim 2:
Kobayashi, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 4.
Kobayashi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions stored in memory to: predict that the collision mode is a symmetrical collision, when a positional relation between a center of the first vehicle and a center of the second vehicle, that are identified based on the positional information of the first vehicle and the positional information of the second vehicle, satisfies a predetermined criterion, and predict that the collision mode is an asymmetrical collision, when the positional relation between the center of the first vehicle and the center of the second vehicle does not satisfy the criterion.
However, Yoshida does disclose wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions stored in memory to: predict that the collision mode is a symmetrical collision, when a positional relation between a center of the first vehicle and a center of the second vehicle, that are identified based on the positional information of the first vehicle and the positional information of the second vehicle, satisfies a predetermined criterion [Fig. 4, S401-YES, S402-NO, S403-NO; the centers of the vehicle would have to align to impact R1 and not R2 or R3], and predict that the collision mode is an asymmetrical collision, when the positional relation between the center of the first vehicle and the center of the second vehicle does not satisfy the criterion [Fig. 4, S401-NO, S404-NO, S405-YES; among other examples].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the collision detection and mitigation device of Kobayashi with the vehicle and collision type determination of Yoshida to reduce the potential for injuries by improving safety system response in a car-type vehicle.
Claim 3:
Kobayashi and Yoshida, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 2.
Kobayashi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein, when the center of the second vehicle is situated in a region of a predetermined width passing through the center of the first vehicle in a vehicle front-rear direction, the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to determine that the positional relations between the center of the first vehicle and the center of the second vehicle satisfies the criterion.
However, Yoshida does disclose wherein, when the center of the second vehicle is situated in a region of a predetermined width passing through the center of the first vehicle in a vehicle front-rear direction, the processor is configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to determine that the positional relations between the center of the first vehicle and the center of the second vehicle satisfies the criterion [Fig. 4, S401-YES, S402-NO, S403-NO; the centers of the vehicle would have to align to impact R1 and not R2 or R3; also note that R1 represents a region in the center of the own vehicle].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jo (US 2013/0124050 A1) discloses a pre-crash detection device of a vehicle using an acceleration sensor and a laser scanning sensor unit.
Kumagai (US 2008/0243343 A1) discloses a control method for an occupant restraint device optimized based on a collision detection.
Okamura (US 2015/0105982 A1) discloses a multiple sensor collision determination system for a vehicle used to determine the severity of impact.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights