CTNF 19/007,695 CTNF 95521 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the method further) comprising” (emphasis added) which should read “the method further comprising” (emphasis added) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 8, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20210300244) . In regards to claim 1, Kim teaches a computer-implemented method for reducing a risk of a collision of a road user with a rear-end of a vehicle, the method comprising: (Fig 6-8, [0003], [0004], [0071] method provides alert to account for risk of collision with vehicle behind the own vehicle by reducing plausibility of collision or preventing collision entirely.) obtaining first data indicative of a position of the road user in a zone behind the rear-end of the vehicle, ([0054], [0056], [0068] alarm may be activated based on location of two wheeled vehicle, such that it may be activated when the two wheeled vehicle is located within an alarm area that may be at the rear or rear and sides of the own vehicle and not at a long distance, which required determining position of two wheeled vehicle.) obtaining second data indicative of the road user being a vulnerable road user, ([0044], [0046], [0069] object data may be analyzed to determine if the object is a two wheeled vehicle or a four wheeled vehicle where two wheeled vehicles are vulnerable road users, and approaching behavior of two wheeled vehicle may be determined.) and providing a control instruction for controlling the vehicle for reducing the risk of the rear-end collision based on the first data and the second data. ([0054], [0056], [0071], [0071] when collision is determined to be plausible within rear alarm area, alarm is activated through user’s display to reduce plausibility of collision or prevent collision, which is performed based upon determined position and type of object.) In regards to claim 2, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, the vulnerable road user being any of a bicyclist, a motorcyclist, and a scooter rider. ([0003], [0044], [0046] two wheeled vehicle may be determined, which includes at least a motorcycle with a driver, where the driver is a motorcyclist.) In regards to claim 8, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, the second data further being indicative of at least one from an age, a traffic awareness, a body posture, and a driving behavior of the vulnerable road user. ([0069] determinations may be made on if two wheeled vehicle approaches the own vehicle from the rear side, which is a determination of driving behavior of the two wheeled vehicle.) In regards to claim 10, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, the zone being defined based on the second data. ([0069], [0070] when approach of the two wheeled vehicle is detected, the alarm area may be expanded to account for the driving behavior of the two wheeled vehicle suggesting that the vehicle may travel into adjacent lanes next to the own vehicle. This defines the alarm area at least in part based on driving behavior data of the two wheeled vehicle.) In regards to claim 13, Kim teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored in a memory and executed by a processor to carry out computer-implemented method steps for reducing a risk of a collision of a road user with a rear-end of a vehicle, the computer-implemented method steps comprising: ([0102] medium stores methods for operation. Fig 6-8, [0003], [0004], [0071] method provides alert to account for risk of collision with vehicle behind the own vehicle by reducing plausibility of collision or preventing collision entirely.) obtaining first data indicative of a position of the road user in a zone behind the rear-end of the vehicle, ([0054], [0056], [0068] alarm may be activated based on location of two wheeled vehicle, such that it may be activated when the two wheeled vehicle is located within an alarm area that may be at the rear or rear and sides of the own vehicle and not at a long distance, which required determining position of two wheeled vehicle.) obtaining second data indicative of the road user being a vulnerable road user, ([0044], [0046], [0069] object data may be analyzed to determine if the object is a two wheeled vehicle or a four wheeled vehicle where two wheeled vehicles are vulnerable road users, and approaching behavior of two wheeled vehicle may be determined.) and providing a control instruction for controlling the vehicle for reducing the risk of the rear- end collision based on the first data and the second data. ([0054], [0056], [0071], [0071] when collision is determined to be plausible within rear alarm area, alarm is activated through user’s display to reduce plausibility of collision or prevent collision, which is performed based upon determined position and type of object.) In regards to claim 14, Kim teaches a vehicle, the vehicle comprising: (Fig 1, [0040] operates within host vehicle.) a memory storing instructions executed by a processor to carry out computer-implemented method steps for reducing a risk of a collision of a road user with a rear-end of the vehicle, the computer-implemented method steps comprising: ([0102] medium stores methods for operation. Fig 6-8, [0003], [0004], [0071] method provides alert to account for risk of collision with vehicle behind the own vehicle by reducing plausibility of collision or preventing collision entirely.) obtaining first data indicative of a position of the road user in a zone behind the rear- end of the vehicle, ([0054], [0056], [0068] alarm may be activated based on location of two wheeled vehicle, such that it may be activated when the two wheeled vehicle is located within an alarm area that may be at the rear or rear and sides of the own vehicle and not at a long distance, which required determining position of two wheeled vehicle.) obtaining second data indicative of the road user being a vulnerable road user, ([0044], [0046], [0069] object data may be analyzed to determine if the object is a two wheeled vehicle or a four wheeled vehicle where two wheeled vehicles are vulnerable road users, and approaching behavior of two wheeled vehicle may be determined.) and providing a control instruction for controlling the vehicle for reducing the risk of the rear-end collision based on the first data and the second data. ([0054], [0056], [0071], [0071] when collision is determined to be plausible within rear alarm area, alarm is activated through user’s display to reduce plausibility of collision or prevent collision, which is performed based upon determined position and type of object.) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Forscher et al . (US 20240062656) . In regards to claim 3, Kim teaches the method of claim 1. Kim does not teach: the method further comprising: obtaining third data indicative of a deceleration to be performed by the vehicle in response to at least one of: a traffic situation ahead of a current position of the vehicle, and a routing of the vehicle, the instruction being further based on the third data. However, Forscher teaches providing a number of actions to a vehicle in traffic behind another vehicle to avoid a collision between the vehicle and a vulnerable road user, described as a pedestrian or motorcyclist, where the actions include optional deceleration and maneuvering based on the traffic conditions ([0017]-[0019], [0062], [0064]). This includes detecting a deceleration to be performed by the vehicle in response to a traffic situation ahead of the vehicle through which the vehicle is routed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control method of Kim by incorporating the teachings of Forscher, such that the host vehicle of Kim receives a number of actions for the vehicle to optionally perform including a planned deceleration of the vehicle based upon the traffic situation ahead of and around the vehicle through which the vehicle is routed to avoid a collision between the two wheeled vehicle and the host vehicle. The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Forscher, this allows for improved mitigation of collision risk and improved safety ([0015]). In regards to claim 4, Forscher teaches providing a number of actions to a vehicle in traffic behind another vehicle to avoid a collision between the vehicle and a vulnerable road user, described as a pedestrian or motorcyclist, where the actions include optional deceleration and maneuvering based on the traffic conditions which may become the only action option available depending on conditions ([0017]-[0019], [0062], [0064]). This provides an optional or mandatory deceleration before the deceleration command is performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control method of Kim, as already modified by Forscher, by further incorporating the teachings of Forscher, such that when the host vehicle of Kim receives the number of actions for the vehicle to optionally perform including a planned deceleration of the vehicle, determination are made based upon the traffic situation ahead of and around the vehicle, on which action options are available, which indicates whether the deceleration is optional or necessary to perform. The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Forscher in regards to claim 3. In regards to claim 5, Forscher teaches providing a number of actions to a vehicle in traffic behind another vehicle to avoid a collision between the vehicle and a vulnerable road user, described as a pedestrian or motorcyclist, where the actions include optional deceleration and maneuvering based on the traffic conditions which may become the only action option available depending on conditions ([0017]-[0019], [0062], [0064]). This provides an optional or mandatory deceleration before the deceleration command is performed. When the deceleration is determined not to be an available action option and only other options are available, the deceleration is avoided based upon the determined data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control method of Kim, as already modified by Forscher, by further incorporating the teachings of Forscher, such that when the host vehicle of Kim receives the number of actions for the vehicle to optionally perform including a planned deceleration of the vehicle, determination are made based upon the traffic situation ahead of and around the vehicle, on which action options are available, including that the deceleration is not an available option and the deceleration is thereby avoided. The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Forscher in regards to claim 3. In regards to claim 6, Forscher teaches providing a number of actions to a vehicle in traffic behind another vehicle to avoid a collision between the vehicle and a vulnerable road user, described as a pedestrian or motorcyclist, where the actions include optional deceleration and maneuvering, such as switching lanes which includes laterally moving, based on the traffic conditions which may become the only action option available depending on conditions ([0017]-[0019], [0062], [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control method of Kim, as already modified by Forscher, by further incorporating the teachings of Forscher, such that when the host vehicle of Kim receives the number of actions for the vehicle to optionally perform, the actions include deceleration of the vehicle and lane changing which is laterally moving. The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Forscher in regards to claim 3. In regards to claim 7, Forscher teaches a vehicle may transmit an alert to a party at risk of being harmed by a collision, for example a motorcycle, through for example vehicle to vehicle transmission, where the alert may indicate potential actions that may be taken to avoid such a collision ([0017], [0019]). This transmits an alert to the motorcycle of a motorcyclist which is a device of a vulnerable road user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control method of Kim, as already modified by Forscher, by further incorporating the teachings of Forscher, such that a notification is provided to the two wheeled vehicle which indicates in some way the actions to be performed, including deceleration by the vehicle. The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Forscher in regards to claim 3. In regards to claim 9, Kim teaches the method of claim 1. Kim does not teach: the second data further being indicative of at least one from an uphill road section, a downhill road section, and a road condition of a road behind the vehicle. However, Forscher teaches determining conditions around vehicles including road conditions such as potholes and defects around the vehicle ([0053]). This includes road conditions in all directions around the vehicle, necessarily also include behind the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control method of Kim, by incorporating the teachings of Forscher, such that road conditions around the vehicle are determined within collected data including road conditions of the area behind the vehicle. The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Forscher in regards to claim 3 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Foessel et al . (US 20060293856) . In regards to claim 11, Kim teaches the method of claim 1. Kim does not: the zone comprising a first portion behind the rear-end of the vehicle, the first portion having a width (W31) being at least the width (W) of the vehicle, and the zone comprising second portions adjacent to the first portion, the control instruction being further based on whether the vulnerable road user is positioned in the first portion or a second portion of the zone. However, Foessel teaches a region of interest extending away from a vehicle composed of multiple sections including a central portion as a primary safety area where the primary safety area is determined based on vehicle dynamics and width of the vehicle ([0060]) and a safety margin area surrounds or partially surrounds the primary safety area expanding the width of the safety area ([0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control operations of Kim, by incorporating the teachings of Foessel, such that the rear alarm area of Kim is defined to be at least the width of the vehicle and further expanded by adding a safety margin area around and adjacent to the rear alarm area, which is then further used to selectively activate the rear alarm of Kim when the two wheeled vehicle enters the primary safety area or the safety margin areas. The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Foessel, this allows for improved safety of the vehicle ([0002]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 20200272147) . In regards to claim 12, Kim teaches the method of claim 1. Kim does not teach: the second data further being indicative of a signaling of the vulnerable road user indicating a lane switch of the vulnerable road user behind the vehicle, and the method comprising cancelling the control instruction based on the second data. However, Hashimoto teaches determining a blinker is flashing of a nearby vehicle to the own vehicle and adjusting control of the vehicle based upon the determined blinker status of the nearby vehicle (Fig 7, [0070]-[0075], Claim 1, Claim 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control method of Kim, by incorporating the teachings of Hashimoto, such that as the two wheeled vehicle is monitored, a blinker status of the two wheel vehicle is determined, and when the blinker is found to be on indicating lane change, the avoidance operations of the own vehicle are redetermined, which includes the case of cancelling the current control instruction based on the determined behavior of the two wheeled vehicle including blinker data. The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hashimoto, this allows for improved blinker judgment, which allows for improved situational awareness and an improved travel plan for the vehicle ([0006], [0008]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prasad (US 10086809) teaches a region of interest directly behind an own vehicle. Kadetotad et al . (US 20180148047) teaches a region of interest is monitored behind an own vehicle. Fürsich (US 20160148062) teaches a grid based region of interest behind an own vehicle. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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. /MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661 Application/Control Number: 19/007,695 Page 2 Art Unit: 3661 Application/Control Number: 19/007,695 Page 3 Art Unit: 3661 Application/Control Number: 19/007,695 Page 4 Art Unit: 3661 Application/Control Number: 19/007,695 Page 5 Art Unit: 3661 Application/Control Number: 19/007,695 Page 6 Art Unit: 3661 Application/Control Number: 19/007,695 Page 8 Art Unit: 3661 Application/Control Number: 19/007,695 Page 9 Art Unit: 3661 Application/Control Number: 19/007,695 Page 10 Art Unit: 3661 Application/Control Number: 19/007,695 Page 11 Art Unit: 3661
Prosecution Insights