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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness,
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, U.S. 2019/0344791 in view of Calmes et al., U.S. 2015/0379362.
On claim 1, Kim cites except as underlined:
A notification device that notifies a driver of a host vehicle of a start of movement
of a preceding vehicle that is in a stopped state in front of the host vehicle, the notification device comprising a processor, the processor
Kim:
[0134] In the apparatus for assisting driving of the host vehicle having such a hardware configuration, a software or a program for performing the functions of the controller 120 or the traffic signal determiner 210, the road congestion determiner 220, the host vehicle stop determiner 230, the preceding vehicle stop determiner 240, the preceding vehicle start determiner 250 and the start notifier 260 may be stored or installed in the memory 620 or the storage unit 630, and may be executed by the processor 610.
is configured to:
determine whether the driver is visually checking a forward direction;
detect a state of the preceding vehicle;
[0008] In accordance with another aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a controller or a preceding vehicle start notification apparatus including: a host vehicle stop determiner configured to determine the stop state of a host vehicle based on at least one of a speed information of the host vehicle, an accelerator pedal state information of the host vehicle, a brake pedal state information of the host vehicle and a transmission gear state information of the host vehicle; a preceding vehicle stop determiner configured to determine the stop state of the preceding vehicle based on information of the stop state of the host vehicle, a speed information of the preceding vehicle, a distance information between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle; a preceding vehicle start determiner configured to determine the start of the preceding vehicle after the stop of the preceding vehicle based on a speed change information of the preceding vehicle and a distance change information between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle; and a start notifier configured to notify the start of the preceding vehicle after the stop to a driver of the host vehicle if the preceding vehicle is determined to restart after the stop.
and
notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle,
0008] a start notifier configured to notify the start of the preceding vehicle after the stop to a driver of the host vehicle if the preceding vehicle is determined to restart after the stop.
wherein the processor is configured to change a notification mode of notifying the
driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle, between
a case where it is determined that the driver is visually checking the forward direction
and
a case where it is determined that the driver is not visually checking the forward direction,
the notifying being based on the state of the preceding vehicle detected by the state detection unit, and the notification mode includes at least one of a timing of a notification,
presence or absence of the notification, and a notification method.
Regarding the excepted claim limitations,
“determine whether the driver is visually checking a forward direction
and
wherein the processor is configured to change a notification mode of notifying the
driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle, between
a case where it is determined that the driver is visually checking the forward direction
and
a case where it is determined that the driver is not visually checking the forward direction”
as disclosed in Kim,
[0008] a start notifier configured to notify the start of the preceding vehicle after the stop to a driver of the host vehicle if the preceding vehicle is determined to restart after the stop.
Kim fails to disclose the excepted claim limitations wherein there is a system involving determining driver reaction to the activities of the preceding vehicle.
In the similar art of driver monitoring and warning, Calmes cites:
[0074] The imaging device will be able to monitor head movements and eye gaze. [0075] a) Driver attentiveness: A potentially distracted driver (looking sideways, tuning the radio) can be alerted by e.g. a forward collision warning system in a more adequate way. Warning time, -intensity and -strategy can be adapted to the drivers attentiveness and his viewing direction (an attentive driver looking at the cars in front of him can be warned later to avoid unnecessary or too early alerts that might annoy the driver, while a distracted driver needs to be warned earlier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s embodiment to incorporate the features disclosed in Calmes such that the claimed invention is realized. Kim’s embodiment includes notifying the host driver of the preceding vehicle’s movement. Calmes’s embodiment is ascertaining if the driver behind is paying attention to a monitored event and if not, sounding an alarm to driver away from being distracted. One of ordinary skill would have incorporated Calmes’s embodiment into Kim to warn the driver that his distraction is impeding traffic.
Regarding the excepted: “the notifying being based on the state of the preceding vehicle detected by the state detection unit, and the notification mode includes at least one of a timing of a notification, presence or absence of the notification, and a notification method.”
As previously disclosed above, Kim and Calmes included a modified embodiment in which a driver, distracted from driving, is warned of the preceding vehicle moving and the driver should switch from being distracted to being invested in the driving at hand. Neither specifically discloses the excepted claim limitations: the notifying being based on the state of the preceding vehicle detected by the state detection unit, and the notification mode includes at least one of a timing of a notification…and a notification method.
However, Calmes disclosed:
A potentially distracted driver (looking sideways, tuning the radio) can be alerted by e.g. a forward collision warning system in a more adequate way. Warning time, -intensity and -strategy can be adapted to the drivers attentiveness and his viewing direction (an attentive driver looking at the cars in front of him can be warned later to avoid unnecessary or too early alerts that might annoy the driver, while a distracted driver needs to be warned earlier).
In Calmes, the distracted driving scheme includes at least two ways to deal with the distracted driver: varying the intensity or timing of the alert.
In the case of timeliness, a distracted driver requires an earlier warning to apprise of the warning to allow the distracted driver time to disengage from the distraction while the later warning may be applied to the attentive driver since the driver has been determined not to be distracted. One of ordinary skill, apprised of this feature, would have incorporated such a feature to prevent “alarm fatigue” for the attentive driver while simultaneously dealing with an errant driver. Because of the varying times to warn an inattentive driver and an attentive driver, this embodiment also fulfills the claimed “the notification mode includes…a notification method.”
Regarding the excepted: “presence or absence of the notification,” Calmes, as above, disclosed:
Warning time, -intensity and -strategy can be adapted to the drivers attentiveness and his viewing direction (an attentive driver looking at the cars in front of him
In other words, Calmes discloses an embodiment includes varying the intensity of the notification of distracted driving depending on the driver’s attentiveness. Calmes doesn’t disclose the claimed invention. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Calmes the added feature of having an “absence of notification” if clearly the driver is attentive to the traffic in front of him and responds in a timely and appropriate manner to the preceding vehicle’s movement. One of ordinary skill, apprised of this feature, would have included in the cited “intensity” the feature of not sounding an alarm. One of ordinary skill would have included such a feature as to not expose the attentive driver to unnecessary distractions for an alarm designed for inattentive drivers.
On claim 2, Kim and Calmes cites:
The notification device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle at an earlier timing, from the start of movement of the preceding vehicle, when it is determined that the driver is not visually checking the forward direction, compared to when it is determined that the driver is visually checking the forward direction.
See the rejection of claim 1 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons as indicated hereinbelow:
Kim discloses:
[0008] a start notifier configured to notify the start of the preceding vehicle after the stop to a driver of the host vehicle if the preceding vehicle is determined to restart after the stop
Kim fails to disclose the excepted claim limitations wherein there is a system involving determining driver reaction to the activities of the preceding vehicle.
In the similar art of driver monitoring and warning, Calmes cites:
[0074] The imaging device will be able to monitor head movements and eye gaze. [0075] a) Driver attentiveness: A potentially distracted driver (looking sideways, tuning the radio) can be alerted by e.g. a forward collision warning system in a more adequate way. Warning time, -intensity and -strategy can be adapted to the drivers attentiveness and his viewing direction (an attentive driver looking at the cars in front of him can be warned later to avoid unnecessary or too early alerts that might annoy the driver, while a distracted driver needs to be warned earlier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s embodiment to incorporate the features disclosed in Calmes such that the claimed invention is realized. Kim’s embodiment includes notifying the host driver of the preceding vehicle’s movement. Calmes’s embodiment is ascertaining if the driver behind is paying attention to a monitored event and if not, sounding an alarm to driver away from being distracted. One of ordinary skill would have incorporated Calmes’s embodiment into Kim to warn the driver that his distraction is impeding traffic.
On claim 3, Kim and Calmes cites except as underlined:
The notification device according to claim 2, wherein when it is determined that the driver is visually checking the forward direction, the processor is configured to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle when a movement amount of the started preceding vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a first movement amount, and, when it is determined that the driver is not visually checking the forward direction, the processor is configured to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle when the movement amount of the started preceding vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a second movement amount, the second movement amount being smaller than the first movement amount.
(The claimed “movement amount” is interpreted to be distance per figures 4A and 4B of the applicant’s specification).
In the rejection of claim 1, Calmes disclosed:
A potentially distracted driver (looking sideways, tuning the radio) can be alerted by e.g. a forward collision warning system in a more adequate way. Warning time, -intensity and -strategy can be adapted to the drivers attentiveness and his viewing direction (an attentive driver looking at the cars in front of him can be warned later to avoid unnecessary or too early alerts that might annoy the driver, while a distracted driver needs to be warned earlier).
In other words, Calmes discloses an embodiment for determining the amount of time it takes for a driver to react to a preceding vehicle’s departure. An earlier warning time is issued to a distracted driver while either a later or no-warning condition is provided to an attentive driver. However, neither Kim nor Calmes discloses an embodiment based on the measuring of distance, and therefore, a claimed “movement amount” meeting the claimed limitations.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and include into Kim and Calmes an embodiment wherein the claimed invention is realized.
In analyzing the movements of a preceding vehicle, there is a reasonable standard velocity the preceding vehicle is assuming when conditions to the allow the preceding vehicle favors the vehicle’s movement. While clearly Calmes doesn’t disclose an inattentive driver warning based on measuring a predetermined distance, Calmes’s embodiment is involved in providing a driver a notification of a forward vehicle’s departure depending on the driver’s attentiveness.
One of ordinary skill, apprised of the known times for notifying the driver according to the driver’s determined attentiveness state, would have derived determining the respective distances for notifying the host driver through calculating velocity over time to arrive at an embodiment equivalent to the claimed invention based on the known but limited parameters presented in the cited references and known practical mathematics.
On claim 4, Kim and Calmes cites except as underlined:
The notification device according to claim 2, wherein when it is determined that the driver is visually checking the forward direction, the processor is configured to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle when an elapsed time from the preceding vehicle starting to move becomes equal to or greater than a first time period, and, when it is determined that the driver is not visually checking the forward direction, the processor is configured to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle when the elapsed time from the preceding vehicle starting to move becomes equal to or greater than a second time period, the second time period being shorter than the first time period.
Neither Kim nor Calmes discloses the excepted claim limitations. However, as in the rejection of claim 1, Calmes disclosed:
[0074] The imaging device will be able to monitor head movements and eye gaze. [0075] a) Driver attentiveness: A potentially distracted driver (looking sideways, tuning the radio) can be alerted by e.g. a forward collision warning system in a more adequate way. Warning time, -intensity and -strategy can be adapted to the drivers attentiveness and his viewing direction (an attentive driver looking at the cars in front of him can be warned later to avoid unnecessary or too early alerts that might annoy the driver, while a distracted driver needs to be warned earlier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the operation and known features of Calmes, to arrive at an embodiment meeting the claimed invention.
While the claimed invention is using time periods between a first time period and a second time period in which to warn a driver depending on the attentiveness of the driver and Calmes does not, one of ordinary skill would observe the embodiment employing time periods to warn the driver that a preceding vehicle is departing is no different than the prior art disclosing a similar embodiment wherein Calmes is using a time instead of a time period to warn the driver of the departing preceding vehicle. One of ordinary skill, apprised of this known relationship, would have arrived at the claimed invention based on the similar “triggering points” to notify the driver of the departing vehicle as found in the invention and in Calmes
On claim 5, Kim and Calmes cites:
The notification device according to claim 2, wherein when it is determined that the driver is visually checking the forward direction, the processor is configured to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle when a distance from the host vehicle to the preceding vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a first distance, and, when it is determined that the driver is not visually checking the forward direction, the processor is configured to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle when the distance from the host vehicle to the preceding vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a second distance, the second distance being less than the first distance.
On claim 6, Kim and Calmes cites:
The notification device according to claim 1, wherein when it is determined that the driver is visually checking the forward direction, the processor is configured not to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle even when the start of movement of the preceding vehicle is detected.
See the rejection of claim 1:
“Regarding the excepted: “presence or absence of the notification,” Calmes, as above, disclosed:
Warning time, -intensity and -strategy can be adapted to the drivers attentiveness and his viewing direction (an attentive driver looking at the cars in front of him
In other words, Calmes discloses an embodiment includes varying the intensity of the notification of distracted driving depending on the driver’s attentiveness. Calmes doesn’t disclose the claimed invention. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Calmes the added feature of having an “absence of notification” if clearly the driver is attentive to the traffic in front of him and responds in a timely and appropriate manner to the preceding vehicle’s movement. One of ordinary skill, apprised of this feature, would have included in the cited “intensity” the feature of not sounding an alarm. One of ordinary skill would have included such a feature as to not expose the attentive driver to unnecessary distractions for an alarm designed for inattentive drivers.”
On claim 7, Kim and Calmes cites:
A notification method performed by a processor of a host vehicle for notifying a driver of the host vehicle of a start of movement of a preceding vehicle that is in a stopped state in front of the host vehicle, the notification method comprising: determining whether the driver is visually checking a forward direction; detecting a state of the preceding vehicle; and notifying the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle, wherein when notifying the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle, a notification mode of notifying the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle is changed, between a case where it is determined that the driver is visually checking the forward direction and a case where it is determined that the driver is not visually checking the forward direction, the notifying being based on the state of the preceding vehicle, and the notification mode includes at least one of a timing of a notification, presence or absence of the notification, and a notification method. See the rejection of claim 1 wherein claim 1 discloses the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 8, Kim and Calmes cites:
A non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program
Kim:
[0134] In the apparatus for assisting driving of the host vehicle having such a hardware configuration, a software or a program for performing the functions of the controller 120 or the traffic signal determiner 210, the road congestion determiner 220, the host vehicle stop determiner 230, the preceding vehicle stop determiner 240, the preceding vehicle start determiner 250 and the start notifier 260 may be stored or installed in the memory 620 or the storage unit 630, and may be executed by the processor 610.
for notifying a driver of a host vehicle of a start of movement of a preceding vehicle that is in a stopped state in front of the host vehicle, the computer program causing a computer to execute:
determining whether the driver is visually checking a forward direction;
detecting a state of the preceding vehicle; and
notifying the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle, wherein when notifying the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle, a notification mode of notifying the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle is changed, between a case where it is determined that the driver is visually checking the forward direction and a case where it is determined that the driver is not visually checking the forward direction, the notifying being based on the state of the preceding vehicle, and the notification mode includes at least one of a timing of a notification, presence or absence of the notification, and a notification method. See the rejection of claim 1 wherein claim 1 discloses the same subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections-Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 5 of this application (19/012,853).This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 3 claims:
The notification device according to claim 2, wherein when it is determined that the driver is visually checking the forward direction, the processor is configured to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle when a movement amount of the started preceding vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a first movement amount, and, when it is determined that the driver is not visually checking the forward direction, the processor is configured to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle when the movement amount of the started preceding vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a second movement amount, the second movement amount being smaller than the first movement amount.
Claim 5 claims:
The notification device according to claim 2, wherein when it is determined that the driver is visually checking the forward direction, the processor is configured to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle when a distance from the host vehicle to the preceding vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a first distance, and, when it is determined that the driver is not visually checking the forward direction, the processor is configured to notify the driver of the start of movement of the preceding vehicle when the distance from the host vehicle to the preceding vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a second distance, the second distance being less than the first distance.
The respective claim inventions are disclosing embodiments that are otherwise identical, the limitation “movement amount,” as found in claim 3 is defined as “distance,” as defined per figures 4A and 4B of the applicant’s specification, which is identical to the claimed “distance” found in claim 5. Accordingly, claims 3 and 5 are the same subject matter. In order to avoid a continued rejection under this heading, at least either claim 3 or claim 5 must be canceled or either claim 3 or 5 must be sufficiently amended not to claim the same subject matter as the other.
CJE4 If there is to be any double patenting rejection, statutory double patenting needs to be applied here if there is to be at least a rejection of one of claims 3 or 5. Since there are no unjustified extensions of patent exclusivity in this application because both claims were filed on the same date, the only other way to reject both claims, as far as I can see, is to use 35 USC 101. I can argue that despite some word differences, claims 3 and 5 are otherwise identical. Remarks
Applicant sent a "request for status of application" filed 9 July 2025. The Examiner responded to the applicant to inform the applicant of the response. Furthermore, the examiner request the applicant complete an SB-439 form if the applicant requested an interview.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to CAL EUSTAQUIO whose telephone number is (571)270-7229. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Zimmerman, can be reached at (571) 272-3059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application lnformation Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAlR only. For more information about the PAlR system, see http:/lpair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAlR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-91 99 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAL J EUSTAQUIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights