DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 19/002,190, filed December 26, 2024. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits, Claims 1-5 are currently pending and are addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/26/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority based on an Japanese application on February 13, 2024.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “driving assistance device” in claims 1-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding the “driving assistance device” in claims 1-4, the specification of the instant application shows the device comprising the structure a central processing unit, storage unit, and a plurality of sensors in order to perform the functions in figure 1.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Under Step 1:
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim comprising a driving assistance device for a vehicle. (thus the claims are to an apparatus Step 1: yes)
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b)certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A driving assistance device that performs driving assistance for a vehicle when a predetermined target is present in a driving assistance zone that is set on a front side of the vehicle, wherein:
the driving assistance device is able to change setting of area of the driving assistance zone; and
the driving assistance device is configured to, when the setting of the area of the driving assistance zone at a time of detection of a crosswalk on the front side of the vehicle is changeable in an enlarging direction, enlarge the area of the driving assistance zone so as to expand in an outward direction of the vehicle and encompass an entire zone of the driving assistance zone at the time of detection of the crosswalk.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because as drafted, the limitations are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. “driving assistance device”). Specifically, but for the “driving assistance device” language, “performs driving assistance for a vehicle when a predetermined target is present in a driving assistance zone that is set on a front side of the vehicle, wherein … change setting of area of the driving assistance zone … when the setting of the area of the driving assistance zone at a time of detection of a crosswalk on the front side of the vehicle is changeable in an enlarging direction, enlarge the area of the driving assistance zone so as to expand in an outward direction of the vehicle and encompass an entire zone of the driving assistance zone at the time of detection of the crosswalk” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally or with a pen and paper determining that a driving assistance detection zone should be changed, based on a detected crosswalk. For example a normal user driving down a road will see a cross walk and will expand the area that they are mentally evaluating to include an extra area for pedestrians approaching the crosswalk, the process of setting a “driving assistance zone” to encompass different areas is something that is done mentally by drivers as part of a normal driving process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea area as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A driving assistance device that performs driving assistance for a vehicle when a predetermined target is present in a driving assistance zone that is set on a front side of the vehicle, wherein:
the driving assistance device is able to change setting of area of the driving assistance zone; and
the driving assistance device is configured to, when the setting of the area of the driving assistance zone at a time of detection of a crosswalk on the front side of the vehicle is changeable in an enlarging direction, enlarge the area of the driving assistance zone so as to expand in an outward direction of the vehicle and encompass an entire zone of the driving assistance zone at the time of detection of the crosswalk.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “the driving assistance device” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the setting by the driving assistance device is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the setting and enlarging steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The device is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the device).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the driving assistance device” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore claim 1 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4
Under Step 1:
Claims 2-4 are to a method comprising the steps of “wherein, the driving assistance device is configured to, when the area of the driving assistance zone at the time of detection of a crosswalk on the front side of the vehicle is not largest settable area, enlarge the area of the driving assistance zone to the largest settable area” (Claim 2), “wherein the crosswalk is a crosswalk at which no traffic light is installed” (Claim 3), and “wherein the predetermined target is a mobile body that is able to travel on the crosswalk and is moving in a direction toward the vehicle” (Claim 4) (thus the claims are to an method, Step 1: yes).
Under Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1 and recite the limitations of “wherein, the driving assistance device is configured to, when the area of the driving assistance zone at the time of detection of a crosswalk on the front side of the vehicle is not largest settable area, enlarge the area of the driving assistance zone to the largest settable area” (Claim 2), “wherein the crosswalk is a crosswalk at which no traffic light is installed” (Claim 3), and “wherein the predetermined target is a mobile body that is able to travel on the crosswalk and is moving in a direction toward the vehicle” (Claim 4), These claims recite an abstract idea which is directed to mental process.
Under Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the claims do not includes any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically claim 2 is only further reciting an additional mental process step in which the area is enlarged to the maximum. Claims 3-4 are only further defining the earlier mental process steps of claim 1.
Under Step 2B:
Step 2B, the claims 2-4 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as that discussed in Step 2A Prong Two.
The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims 2-4 fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-4 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5,
Under Step 1:
Claim 5 is an method claim comprising the steps of setting an area and enlarging the area. (thus the claims are to an method Step 1: yes)
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b)certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 5 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A driving assistance method that performs driving assistance for a vehicle when a predetermined target is present in a driving assistance zone that is set on a front side of the vehicle, wherein:
the driving assistance method permits setting of area of the driving assistance zone to be changed; and
when the area of the driving assistance zone at a time of detection of a crosswalk on the front side of the vehicle is changeable in an enlarging direction, the driving assistance method enlarges the area of the driving assistance zone so as to expand in an outward direction of the vehicle and encompass an entire zone of the driving assistance zone at the time of detection of the crosswalk.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because as drafted, the limitations are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specifically, “A driving assistance method that performs driving assistance for a vehicle when a predetermined target is present in a driving assistance zone that is set on a front side of the vehicle, wherein: the driving assistance method permits setting of area of the driving assistance zone to be changed; and when the area of the driving assistance zone at a time of detection of a crosswalk on the front side of the vehicle is changeable in an enlarging direction, the driving assistance method enlarges the area of the driving assistance zone so as to expand in an outward direction of the vehicle and encompass an entire zone of the driving assistance zone at the time of detection of the crosswalk” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally or with a pen and paper determining that a driving assistance detection zone should be changed, based on a detected crosswalk. For example a normal user driving down a road will see a cross walk and will expand the area that they are mentally evaluating to include an extra area for pedestrians approaching the crosswalk, the process of setting a “driving assistance zone” to encompass different areas is something that is done mentally by drivers as part of a normal driving process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea area as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A driving assistance method that performs driving assistance for a vehicle when a predetermined target is present in a driving assistance zone that is set on a front side of the vehicle, wherein:
the driving assistance method permits setting of area of the driving assistance zone to be changed; and
when the area of the driving assistance zone at a time of detection of a crosswalk on the front side of the vehicle is changeable in an enlarging direction, the driving assistance method enlarges the area of the driving assistance zone so as to expand in an outward direction of the vehicle and encompass an entire zone of the driving assistance zone at the time of detection of the crosswalk.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fujita (US-20190023239).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches a driving assistance device that performs driving assistance for a vehicle (Paragraph [0027], "FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating the configuration of a travel control apparatus 100 for a vehicle according to an embodiment of the present invention.")
when a predetermined target is present in a driving assistance zone that is set on a front side vehicle, wherein: (Paragraph [0028], "The ambient detection sensor 110 detects objects existing around the subject vehicle. Examples of such an ambient detection sensor 110 include a front camera that captures images ahead of the subject vehicle ... Examples of the objects detected by the ambient detection sensor 110 include ... pedestrian crosswalks. The ambient detection sensor 110 may be configured using one sensor of the above-described sensors or may also be configured using a combination of two or more sensors. The detection results of the ambient detection sensor 110 are output to the control device 160," here the vehicle includes an driving assistance device with a plurality of sensors to detect targets in a zone in front of the vehicle)
the driving assistance device is able to change setting of area of the driving assistance device (Paragraph [0044], "The detection area setting function of the control device 160 is a function capable of setting a detection area for detecting a moving object")
and the driving assistance device is configured to, when the setting of the area of the driving assistance zone at a time of detection of a crosswalk on the front side of the vehicle is changeable in an enlarging direction (Paragraph [0061], "In step S112, the detection area setting function serves to extend the detection area to the position of the stop line. FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of the detection area when stop lines exist,” here the system is detecting a crosswalk with crosswalk lines and the area is changeable in an enlarging direction)
enlarge the area of the driving assistance zone so as to expand in an outward direction of the vehicle and encompass an entire zone of the driving assistance zone at the time of detection of the crosswalk (Paragraph [0061], "In the example illustrated in FIG. 8, only stop lines SL1 and SL2 close to the target pedestrian crosswalk B1 are detected, and the control device 160 therefore uses the detection area setting function to extend the detection area RT to the positions of the stop lines SL1 and S2 in the width direction (Y-direction) of the target pedestrian crosswalk B1," here the system is extending/enlarging the zone to encompass the entire crosswalk).
Regarding claim 2, Fujita teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Fujita further teaches wherein, the driving assistance device is configured to, when the area of the driving assistance zone at the time of detection of a crosswalk on the front side of the vehicle is not largest settable area, enlarge the area of the driving assistance zone to the largest settable area (Paragraph [0070], “On the other hand, when, in step S119, the length LW of the waiting area is not longer than the moving distance LX of the moving object, the routine proceeds to step S121. In step S121, the detection area setting function serves to extend the detection area into the entire waiting area. For example, in the example illustrated in FIG. 12, the length LW2 of the waiting area RW2 is the same length as the moving distance LX2 of the moving object, and the detection area setting function therefore serves to extend the detection area RT into the entire waiting area RW2,” here the system if determining if the length of the area and then extending the detection area to the entire waiting area/maximum settable area).
Regarding claim 3, Fujita teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Fujita further teaches wherein the crosswalk is a crosswalk at which no traffic light is installed (Paragraph [0056], “The control device 160 can use the detection area setting function to set the area of a target pedestrian crosswalk B1 as the detection area RT as illustrated in FIG. 6 because, in step S107, the traffic line of the moving object is estimated on the target pedestrian crosswalk,” here the system is using the traffic line and crosswalk markings to determine the presence of a crosswalk) (See figure 6 showing no traffic signal and figure 14 showing a traffic light installed, the system of Fujita takes both situations into account and the system can detect crosswalks without traffic signals using ground markings).
Regarding claim 4, Fujita teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Fujita further teaches wherein the predetermined target is a mobile body that is able to travel on the crosswalk and is moving in a direction toward the vehicle (See Figures 14 and 15showing determined zones around a detected crosswalk the zones including traffic patterns S4 and S5 which include directions moving towards the vehicle, which pedestrians/mobile bodies will travel on the crosswalk).
Regarding claim 5, Fujita teaches a driving assistance method that performs driving assistance for a vehicle (Paragraph [0027], "FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating the configuration of a travel control apparatus 100 for a vehicle according to an embodiment of the present invention.")
when a predetermined target is present in a driving assistance zone that is set on a front side of the vehicle, wherein: (Paragraph [0028], "The ambient detection sensor 110 detects objects existing around the subject vehicle. Examples of such an ambient detection sensor 110 include a front camera that captures images ahead of the subject vehicle ... Examples of the objects detected by the ambient detection sensor 110 include ... pedestrian crosswalks. The ambient detection sensor 110 may be configured using one sensor of the above-described sensors or may also be configured using a combination of two or more sensors. The detection results of the ambient detection sensor 110 are output to the control device 160," here the vehicle includes an driving assistance device with a plurality of sensors to detect targets in a zone in front of the vehicle)
the driving assistance method permits setting of area of the driving assistance zone to be changed (Paragraph [0044], "The detection area setting function of the control device 160 is a function capable of setting a detection area for detecting a moving object")
and when the area of the driving assistance zone at a time of detection of a crosswalk on the front side of the vehicle is changeable in an enlarging direction (Paragraph [0061], "In step S112, the detection area setting function serves to extend the detection area to the position of the stop line. FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of the detection area when stop lines exist,” here the system is detecting a crosswalk with crosswalk lines and the area is changeable in an enlarging direction)
the driving assistance method enlarges the area of the driving assistance zone so as to expand in an outward direction of the vehicle and encompass an entire zone of the driving assistance zone at the time of detection of the crosswalk (Paragraph [0061], "In the example illustrated in FIG. 8, only stop lines SL1 and SL2 close to the target pedestrian crosswalk B1 are detected, and the control device 160 therefore uses the detection area setting function to extend the detection area RT to the positions of the stop lines SL1 and S2 in the width direction (Y-direction) of the target pedestrian crosswalk B1," here the system is extending/enlarging the zone to encompass the entire crosswalk).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim (US-20230211778) teaches methods and apparatus for driving control including setting target zones on a determined route and performing object detection in the target zones. Mizoguchi (US-20230182769) teaches a driving assist apparatus, including a system which evaluates the course of the vehicle with object detection areas to determine and track moving objects near the path of the vehicle. Sakurada (US-20220270475) teaches an information processing device which controls a display of a crosswalk based on a detected pedestrian.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER FEES whose telephone number is (303)297-4343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 5:30 MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Examiner, Art Unit 3662