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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues Kim (US 20210300244) does not teach the newly amended features of the independent claims, that traffic awareness based on body posture is determined, and therefore concludes the rejections should be withdrawn.
Indeed, Kim is found not to teach this newly amended feature and therefore new reference Tomatsu (US 10083547) has been necessitated, which teaches, in brief, determining a body posture indicating traffic awareness of a user, which when combined into Kim reads upon the claim as a whole, including this newly amended limitation.
As such, this argument is moot.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: recites “data being indicative a traffic awareness” which is grammatically incorrect and should read “data being indicative of a traffic awareness” (emphasis added).
Claim 13 and 14 recite the same informality.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210300244) in view of Tomatsu (US 10083547).
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.)
Kim does not teach:
the second data being indicative a traffic awareness based on a body posture of the vulnerable road user,
However, Tomatsu teaches determining data of the body posture of an occupant of a vehicle that indicates their awareness of traffic (Col 2 lines 31-43).
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 Tomatsu, such that when the object data is collected and analyzed, body posture data is also collected and analyzed of occupants associated with the object data, and awareness indicated by the posture of the occupants is determined.
The motivation to determine posture associated with awareness is that, as acknowledged by Tomatsu, this allows for improved awareness of vehicles which allows for improved handling (Col 1 lines 27-36).
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 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.)
the second data being indicative a traffic awareness based on a body posture of the vulnerable road user,
However, Tomatsu teaches determining data of the body posture of an occupant of a vehicle that indicates their awareness of traffic (Col 2 lines 31-43).
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 instructions of Kim, by incorporating the teachings of Tomatsu, such that when the object data is collected and analyzed, body posture data is also collected and analyzed of occupants associated with the object data, and awareness indicated by the posture of the occupants is determined.
The motivation to determine posture associated with awareness is that, as acknowledged by Tomatsu, this allows for improved awareness of vehicles which allows for improved handling (Col 1 lines 27-36).
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.)
the second data being indicative a traffic awareness based on a body posture of the vulnerable road user,
However, Tomatsu teaches determining data of the body posture of an occupant of a vehicle that indicates their awareness of traffic (Col 2 lines 31-43).
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 of Kim, by incorporating the teachings of Tomatsu, such that when the object data is collected and analyzed, body posture data is also collected and analyzed of occupants associated with the object data, and awareness indicated by the posture of the occupants is determined.
The motivation to determine posture associated with awareness is that, as acknowledged by Tomatsu, this allows for improved awareness of vehicles which allows for improved handling (Col 1 lines 27-36).
Claims 3-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tomatsu, in further view of Forscher et al. (US 20240062656).
In regards to claim 3, Kim, as modified by Tomatsu, teaches the method of claim 1.
Kim, as modified by Tomatsu, 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, as already modified by Tomatsu, 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 Tomatsu and 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 Tomatsu and 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 Tomatsu and 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 Tomatsu and 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, as modified by Tomatsu, teaches the method of claim 1.
Kim, as modified by Tomatsu, 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, as already modified by Tomatsu, 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tomatsu, in further view of Foessel et al. (US 20060293856).
In regards to claim 11, Kim, as modified by Tomatsu, teaches the method of claim 1.
Kim, as modified by Tomatsu, does not teach:
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, as already modified by Tomatsu, 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]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tomatsu, in further view of Hashimoto et al. (US 20200272147).
In regards to claim 12, Kim, as modified by Tomatsu, teaches the method of claim 1.
Kim, as modified by Tomatsu, 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, as already modified by Tomatsu, 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
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights