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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 07/15/2026. Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-12 have been amended. Claim(s) 4 and 7 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 13 have been added. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8-13 are pending examination. Objections to the drawings and claims have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 101 rejection is improper. Applicant alleges that the independent claims, as amended, are integrated into a practical application and therefore are not merely an abstract idea under Prong 2A.
Applicant asserts that the 35 SUC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims is improper. Applicant alleges that the independent claims, as amended, overcome all cited prior art and therefore are allowable. Accordingly, all respective dependent claims would be allowable.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant alleges that the independent claims 1, 11, and 12 are not mere abstract ideas, rather they have been integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole relate to mere data gathering. This is achieved with two data gathering and analysis steps as outlined below in Table A, see “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101.”
Regarding the claim the examiner finds that the claims are merely two data gathering, analysis, and outputting tracks. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.A. The courts have previously found that “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind,” Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In light of this the claim is still an abstract idea.
Applicant then alleges that, “more targeted transmissions of information for reduction of unnecessary transmissions result in reduced data load as well as other reduction of computing resources (e.g. CPU, memory).” (Page 21 of applicant’s remarks). Applicant alleges that this would integrate the idea into a practical solution, as the judicial exception would improve computer functionality. However, as stated in MPEP 2106.05(a), “[I]t is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” The claim as written does not provide more than the judicial exception and generic computer elements. The claim can be performed entirely in the human mind, using a generic computer. The examiner remains unconvinced that the claim is anything more than an abstract idea using a generic computer. The applicant has not proved that it is integrated into a practical application.
Regarding applicant’s argument B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant alleges that the 35 USC 102/103 rejection of the claims is improper. Applicant has rolled claim 4, previously rejected under 35 USC 103, up into claim 1, previously rejected under 35 USC 102. Applicant alleges that the combination of Imbe and Svensson does not teach the claim as amended, in particular, “’analyzing…and determining whether the two-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle,’ and if so, excluding the two-wheel vehicle from the warning target.” (Pages 23-24 of applicant’s response.) Applicant alleges that Svensson [0086] fails to teach this. However, the examiner does not rely on [0086] of Svensson. Even so the teachings of Svensson would render the claim as obvious. Looking at [0082] it states “a preliminary collision calculation is performed for the expected trajectory of the object and the vehicle…[T]he positions and orientations of the bounding boxes may be iteratively calculated along the trajectories at each time step in the iteration… at each iteration it may be calculated whether the bounding boxes are closer than a predetermined distance, and if so, return a positive result for the collision calculation… that the object and vehicle are to be (e.g., will be) less than a predetermined distance from each other), then the method proceeds to step P10, otherwise the object is discarded.” (Emphasis added). [0083] teaches this further with another step, and recalculation. In light of this the examiner finds that the teachings of Svensson are monitoring surrounding vehicle’s for each time point in a given time period, i.e. temporal analysis. The system can then determine whether or not the distances are changing, getting closer/further away. If the distances have moved into a given threshold it proceeds, otherwise the system determines that the vehicle is not moving towards the vehicle. This determination results in the system discarding the data, i.e. excluding it. The applicant alleges this is different from the claims but has not presented persuasive evidence that this is the case, merely try to make a distinction without a difference. The examiner finds that the claims are obvious in light of Svensson and Imbe and would be rejected under 35 USC 103, see below section titled, “Claim Rejections 35 USC 103,” for more detailed mapping and analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claim(s) regarding subject matter eligibility utilizing the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is described below.
STEP 1: STATUTORY CATEGORIES
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8-13 do fall into at least one of the four statutory subject matter categories. Claim 1 and its dependents are directed to an information processing device, which is the statutory category of a machine. Claim 11 is directed to an information processing method, which is the statutory category of a process. Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is the statutory category of a manufacture.
STEP 2A: JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS
PRONG 1: RECITATION OF A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION
The claim(s) recite(s):
Table A. (Claim 1, with the same logic applied to claims 11 and 12.)
Claim Limitation
Analysis/Explanation
An information processing device comprising:
Preamble to the claim/generic computing device
a memory in which a computer program is stored; and
Generic computing element
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform processing by executing the computer program, the processing including
Generic computing element
determining whether another vehicle captured in a captured image of a periphery of an own vehicle in traveling is a two-wheel vehicle or a four-wheel vehicle, and
A mental step of determining, this is achieved by examining the periphery around a vehicle, a person could achieve this result by looking around their vehicle and determining the vehicle type around their vehicle. This is data gathering.
outputting warning information based on an output condition corresponding to a result of the determination, wherein
A person can “output” a warning, i.e. speak to a driver of a vehicle to warn them about a neighboring vehicle. This is analyzing data gathered and outputting a result.
the processing further includes, in response to determining that the other vehicle is the two-wheel vehicle,
An additional step of what to do based on a specific result of the data analysis.
acquiring an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle from a sensor of the own vehicle over time,
A person can determine the distance between themselves and another vehicle over a time period. This is driving. This is also a data gathering step.
analyzing a temporal change in the inter-vehicle distance and determining whether the two-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle, and
A person can analyze data gathered over a time period, i.e. watch a vehicle neighboring their own as they drive. This is generic data gathering/analysis over a time period.
excluding the two-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the two-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle.
A person could determine that the neighboring vehicle is moving away and choose not to speak on it. This is an outputting certain results from the data analysis.
Claim 2
Claim Limitation
Analysis/Explanation
the processing further includes setting a first inter-vehicle distance in response to determining that the other vehicle is the two-wheel vehicle, the first inter-vehicle distance being obtained by changing a first initial inter-vehicle distance in accordance with first traveling situation information regarding a traveling situation of at least one of the own vehicle or the two-wheel vehicle;
A person with a generic computing device could determine/set an inter-vehicle distance based on a determination that the vehicle is another vehicle type
the outputting of the warning information is performed when an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle is the first inter-vehicle distance or less.
The outputting of the warning is based on merely determining that a distance is too low, this is a step that could be performed in a human mind.
- Claim 3 recite(s) insignificant extra-solution activity. It merely further defines elements used to set a travelling condition.
Claim 5
Claim Limitation
Analysis/Explanation
the processing further includes setting second inter-vehicle distance in response to determining that the other vehicle is the four-wheel vehicle, the second inter-vehicle distance being obtained by changing a second initial inter-vehicle distance in accordance with second traveling situation information regarding a traveling situation of at least one of the own vehicle or the four-wheel vehicle;
A person with a generic computing device could determine/set an inter-vehicle distance based on a determination that the vehicle is another vehicle type
the outputting of the warning information is performed when an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is the second inter-vehicle distance or less.
The outputting of the warning is based on merely determining that a distance is too low, this is a step that could be performed in a human mind
- Claim 6 recite(s) insignificant extra-solution activity. It merely further defines elements used to set a travelling condition.
- Claim 8 recite(s) insignificant extra-solution activity. It merely further defines elements used to decide to output a warning signal, mainly travelling speeds and distances.
- Claim 9 recite(s) insignificant extra-solution activity. It merely further defines elements used to decide to output a warning signal, mainly travelling lanes.
- Claim 10 recite(s) insignificant extra-solution activity. It merely further defines elements used to decide to output a warning signal, mainly travelling lanes.
Claim 13
Claim Limitation
Analysis/Explanation
excluding the four-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the other vehicle is the four-wheel vehicle and determining that the four-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle.
A person could determine that the neighboring vehicle is moving away and choose not to speak on it. This is an outputting certain results from the data analysis.
PRONG 2: INTEGRATION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The additional element(s) recited in the claim(s) beyond the judicial exception are generic computing elements and generic conditions used to define these conditions. The additional element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional element(s) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The computer elements are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and the use of the judicial exception is generally linked to the particular technological environment of autonomous vehicle driving and sensing without using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
STEP 2B: INVENTIVE CONCEPT/SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The additional elements recited in the claim(s) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and the computer functions of receiving and transmitting data have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of a “memory” and a “processor” recited in the claim(s) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (MPEP2106.05 (d)).
Based on the above analysis, claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 8-13 is/are not eligible subject matter and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imbe (US PG Pub 2018/0001819) in view of Svensson (US PG Pub 2022/0161767).
Regarding claim 1, Imbe teaches an information processing device comprising: a memory in which a computer program is stored; ([0033] and [0061] teach a system having a memory storing a computer program) and
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform processing by executing the computer program, ([0032] and [0035]-[0036] teach a processor able to execute the stored program) the processing including
determining whether another vehicle captured in a captured image of a periphery of an own vehicle in traveling is a two-wheel vehicle or a four-wheel vehicle, (Claim 1, [0018], [0026], and [0029] teach the system determining that a vehicle detected by a camera of an ego vehicle is a two or four wheeled vehicle) and
outputting warning information based on an output condition corresponding to a result of the determination (Claim 1, [0018], [0026], and [0029] teach the system outputting a warning based on the determination of vehicle type and the detected vehicle meeting some kind of warning condition) wherein
the processing further includes, in response to determining that the other vehicle is the two-wheel vehicle, (Claim 1, [0018], [0026], and [0029] teach the system determining that the vehicle detected is a two wheeled vehicle)
acquiring an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle from a sensor of the own vehicle over time, (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5; and [0041]-[0043] teach the system determining a first inter-vehicle distance based on the determination that the detected vehicle is a two wheeled vehicle. [0048]-[0050] further elaborate that the inter-vehicle distance is a fluid determination that can change to reflect the current situation of the ego-vehicle and its interactions with the environment, i.e. over time)
Imbe does not teach analyzing a temporal change in the inter-vehicle distance and determining whether the two-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle and wherein excluding the two-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the other vehicle is the two-wheel vehicle and determining that the two-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle.
However, Svensson teaches “analyzing a temporal change in the inter-vehicle distance and determining whether the two-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle” ([0082]-[0083] teaches the system monitoring the vehicle’s surroundings over time, i.e. temporal analysis. And determining that the vehicle distance changes over time. This change can be the vehicle moving away from a threshold distance.) and “excluding the two-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the other vehicle is the two-wheel vehicle and determining that the two-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle.” ([0082]-[0083] teaches the system excluding detected objects from the collision calculation and warning system if it is determined that the detected object does not meet a specific condition, i.e. closeness. This would be analogous to the idea that if an object is moving away from the ego vehicle it is excluded from this determination. [0059] teaches that the objects detected could be two or four wheeled.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to elements that can detect vehicles surrounding an ego vehicle. These systems can then classify the type of vehicles detected, i.e. two or four wheeled. Once this occurs the system can make further determinations. As recited in Svensson [0003]-[0005] vehicle sensor systems can be used to determine the surroundings of the ego vehicle. Using these systems the ego vehicle can determine the odds of a collision between an ego vehicle and the surrounding vehicles. The system can classify these surrounding vehicles and then based on this determination; calculate the odds of a collision and output a warning. This ensures that a driver can take some form of evasive action and prevent a collision.
Claims 11 and 12 are substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 2, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing further includes setting a first inter-vehicle distance in response to determining that the other vehicle is the two-wheel vehicle, the first inter-vehicle distance being obtained by changing a first initial inter-vehicle distance in accordance with first traveling situation information regarding a traveling situation of at least one of the own vehicle or the two-wheel vehicle, (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5; and [0041]-[0043] teach the system determining a first inter-vehicle distance based on the determination that the detected vehicle is a two wheeled vehicle. [0048]-[0050] further elaborate that the inter-vehicle distance is a fluid determination that can change to reflect the current situation of the ego-vehicle and its interactions with the environment) and
the outputting of the warning information is performed when the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle is the first inter-vehicle distance or less. (Fig. 4 and [0041]-[0044] teach outputting a warning when the inter-vehicle distance between the ego vehicle and the detected vehicle becomes less than a preset amount)
Regarding claim 3, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the setting of the first inter-vehicle distance is performed by changing the first inter-vehicle distance in accordance with a first condition with which the first traveling situation information matches, (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5; and [0041]-[0043] teach the system determining a first inter-vehicle distance based on the determination that the detected vehicle is a two wheeled vehicle. [0048]-[0050] further elaborate that the inter-vehicle distance is a fluid determination that can change to reflect the current situation of the ego-vehicle and its interactions with the environment) the first condition being at least one of conditions including:
a vehicle speed of the own vehicle being a predetermined speed or higher, the number of times of changing a traveling direction of the two-wheel vehicle being a predetermined number of times or more, traveling in a traveling environment at a predetermined illuminance or lower, a driving skill of a driver of the own vehicle being a predetermined level of skill or lower, a driving skill of a driver of the two-wheel vehicle being a predetermined level of skill or lower, an estimated size of the two-wheel vehicle being a predetermined size or less, a color difference between the two-wheel vehicle and a traveling road surface being a predetermined color difference or less, a traveling road of the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle being a road where high- speed traveling at a predetermined speed or higher is allowed, an estimated crash severity of the two-wheel vehicle being a predetermined severity or more, a traveling site of the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined warning target region, an environment of a traveling road surface of the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle being a predetermined vehicle rollover risk environment, a steering angle of the own vehicle being a predetermined angle or more, deceleration of the own vehicle, a traveling region of the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined area, a vehicle type of the two-wheel vehicle being a preset warning target vehicle, and a predetermined operation by a passenger of the two-wheel vehicle. ([0048]-[0050] teaches the system determining a reason to change the inter-vehicle distance based on the ego-vehicle meeting a predefined condition, i.e. attempting to turn)
Regarding claim 5, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing further includes setting second inter-vehicle distance in response to determining that the other vehicle is the four-wheel vehicle, the second inter-vehicle distance being obtained by changing a second initial inter-vehicle distance in accordance with second traveling situation information regarding a traveling situation of at least one of the own vehicle or the four-wheel vehicle, (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5; and [0040]-[0043] teach the system determining a second inter-vehicle distance based on the determination that the detected vehicle is not a two wheeled vehicle. [0048]-[0050] further elaborate that the inter-vehicle distance is a fluid determination that can change to reflect the current situation of the ego-vehicle and its interactions with the environment) and
the outputting of the warning information is performed when an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is the second inter-vehicle distance or less. (Fig. 4 and [0040]-[0044] teach outputting a warning when the inter-vehicle distance between the ego vehicle and the detected vehicle becomes less than a preset amount)
Regarding claim 6, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the setting of the second inter-vehicle distance is performed by changing the second inter-vehicle distance in accordance with a second condition with which the second traveling situation information matches, (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5; and [0041]-[0043] teach the system determining a first inter-vehicle distance based on the determination that the detected vehicle is a two wheeled vehicle. [0048]-[0050] further elaborate that the inter-vehicle distance is a fluid determination that can change to reflect the current situation of the ego-vehicle and its interactions with the environment) the second condition being at least one of conditions including:
Imbe does not teach a vehicle speed of the own vehicle being a predetermined speed or higher, an estimated size of the four-wheel vehicle being a predetermined size or more, a traveling road of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being a road where high-speed traveling at a predetermined speed or higher is allowed and an estimated crash severity of the four-wheel vehicle that is traveling in the road being a predetermined severity or more, the estimated crash severity of the four-wheel vehicle being a predetermined severity or more, a traveling site of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined warning target region, a vehicle registration number of the four-wheel vehicle being a preset number, a traveling region of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined area, and a vehicle type of the four-wheel vehicle being a preset warning target vehicle.
However, Svenson teaches “a vehicle speed of the own vehicle being a predetermined speed or higher, an estimated size of the four-wheel vehicle being a predetermined size or more, a traveling road of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being a road where high-speed traveling at a predetermined speed or higher is allowed and an estimated crash severity of the four-wheel vehicle that is traveling in the road being a predetermined severity or more, the estimated crash severity of the four-wheel vehicle being a predetermined severity or more, a traveling site of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined warning target region, a vehicle registration number of the four-wheel vehicle being a preset number, a traveling region of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined area, and a vehicle type of the four-wheel vehicle being a preset warning target vehicle.” ([0071] teaches the system having a determination for conditions that are used to set the inter-vehicle distance, i.e. vehicle speed, position, etc.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success, for the reasons recited above.
Regarding claim 8, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the outputting of the warning information is performed when the other vehicle is determined to be the four-wheel vehicle, (Claim 1, [0018], [0026], and [0029] teach the system determining that a vehicle detected by a camera of an ego vehicle is a four wheeled vehicle)
the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is the second inter-vehicle distance or less. ([0029] teaches the inter-vehicle distance being less than a certain amount)
Imbe does not teach a relative speed between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is a predetermined relative speed or higher.
However, Svenson teaches “a relative speed between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is a predetermined relative speed or higher.” ([0045] teaches the system determining the relative velocity of the vehicles. [0101] teaches the relative velocity being a high speed above a given amount)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success, for the reasons recited above.
Regarding claim 9, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the outputting of the warning information is performed when the other vehicle is determined to be the four-wheel vehicle, (Claim 1, [0018], [0026], and [0029] teach the system determining that a vehicle detected by a camera of an ego vehicle is a four wheeled vehicle)
the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is the second inter-vehicle distance or less. ([0029] teaches the inter-vehicle distance being less than a certain amount)
Imbe does not teach a first lane on which the own vehicle travels matches with a second lane on which the four-wheel vehicle travels.
However, Svenson teaches “a first lane on which the own vehicle travels matches with a second lane on which the four-wheel vehicle travels.” (Fig. 9 and [0099]-[0100] teaches the system determining that the ego vehicle and a detected vehicle are subject to a “longitudinal collision” this is a collision that occurs when the other vehicle and ego vehicle would collide while traveling in the same lane)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success, for the reasons recited above.
Regarding claim 10, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the outputting of the warning information is performed when the other vehicle is determined to be the four-wheel vehicle, (Claim 1, [0018], [0026], and [0029] teach the system determining that a vehicle detected by a camera of an ego vehicle is a four wheeled vehicle)
the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is the second inter-vehicle distance or less. ([0029] teaches the inter-vehicle distance being less than a certain amount)
Imbe does not teach a first lane on which the own vehicle travels does not match with a second lane on which the four-wheel vehicle travels; and a lane present in a planned traveling change direction of the own vehicle matches with the second lane.
However, Svenson teaches “a first lane on which the own vehicle travels does not match with a second lane on which the four-wheel vehicle travels;” (Fig. 9 and [0100]-[0101] teach the system determining the “lateral separation” between the ego vehicle and the detected vehicle. The lateral separation would be analogous to determining that the vehicles are not in the same travel lane as if they have lateral separation they cannot be in the same lane) and “a lane present in a planned traveling change direction of the own vehicle matches with the second lane.” ([0069] teaches the system of the ego vehicle having a predetermined trajectory, and calculating the probability that a collision will occur based on said detected vehicle)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success, for the reasons recited above.
Regarding claim 13, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Imbe does not teach wherein the processing further includes excluding the four-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the other vehicle is the four-wheel vehicle and determining that the four-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle.
However, Svenson teaches “wherein the processing further includes excluding the four-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the other vehicle is the four-wheel vehicle and determining that the four-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle.” ([0082]-[0083] teaches the system excluding detected objects from the collision calculation and warning system if it is determined that the detected object does not meet a specific condition, i.e. closeness. This would teach that if an object is moving away from the ego vehicle it is excluded from these determinations. [0059] teaches that the objects detected could be two or four wheeled.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success, for the reasons recited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takatsudo (US PG Pub 2011/0199197) teaches a system 1 for monitoring the area around a vehicle of the present invention capable of visually notifying the passenger in the vehicle 10 of not only the presence but also the kind of an object in images around the vehicle displayed in an HUD 7, for example, according to a difference in the display mode of the presence of the object, wherein the driver of the vehicle 10 is able to recognize which of a human or a four-footed animal the object belongs to, according to either a difference in the design between a first mark M1 and a second mark M2 or a difference in the design between a first frame F1 and a second frame F2 displayed on the HUD 7.
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 NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
