DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the arguments filed June 26, 2026.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In light of the Superguide decision, the phrase “at least one of x, y, and z” is given its plain meaning interpretation of “at least one of x, at least one of y, and at least one of z” unless separately defined in the specification. This interpretation applies to claims 2, 4, 10, 12, 18, and 20. The specification does not recite language that contradicts this plain meaning interpretation. Therefore, the identified claims are given this interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (Kim; US PG Pub #2021/0107477).
As to claim 1, Kim teaches a method performed by a controller of a vehicle (Paragraph [0002] teaches a method for preventing an accident of a vehicle; Paragraph [0069] teaches a controller; Paragraph [0154] teaches the controller controls overall operation of object detection), the method comprising:
generating and emitting sound signals into an environment around the vehicle using one or more ultrasonic sensors arranged on the vehicle;
receiving, at the one or more ultrasonic sensors, the sound signals as reflected back toward the vehicle by at least one object in the environment (Paragraph [0150] teaches an ultrasonic transmitting module and ultrasonic receiving module; Paragraph [0161] teaches detecting an object based on reflected ultrasonic wave);
calculating, at the controller, a threat score associated with the at least one object based on a distance of the object from the vehicle, a velocity of the object, and a direction of movement of the object relative to the vehicle (Paragraph [0210] teaches calculating a collision possibility based on distance between an object at the vehicle, the direction in which the object is positioned with respect to the vehicle, and the traveling speed of the object);
comparing, at the controller, the threat score to at least one threshold (Paragraph [0209] teaches comparing the calculated collision possibility with a set probability); and
generating, at the controller, an alert in response to a determination that the threat score is greater than the at least one threshold (Paragraph [0209] teaches determining a risk of accident exists when the calculated collision possibility is greater than or equal to the set probability; Paragraph [0211] teaches providing guidance information through a display or speaker based on the determination that there is a risk of accident).
As to claim 5, depending from the method of claim 1, Kim teaches wherein calculating the threat score associated with the at least one object includes assigning respective values to the distance of the object from the vehicle, the velocity of the object, and the direction of movement of the object relative to the vehicle (Paragraph [0240] teaches assigning a numerical rating value to the distance between the object and the vehicle, the recognition information of the direction in which the object is positioned, and the speed of the object).
As to claim 7, depending from the method of claim 1, Kim teaches wherein the at least one threshold includes a first threshold and a second threshold greater than the first threshold, the method further comprising selectively ignoring the at least one object in response to determining that the threat score is not greater than the first threshold (Paragraph [0212] teaches a first and second set probability, where only a safe driving message is given when the collision possibility is less than the second set probability).
As to claim 9, Kim teaches a system configured to control and monitor an environment around a vehicle (Paragraph [0069] teaches a system to prevent an accident of a vehicle with an object detector and a controller; Paragraph [0135] teaches the object detector may sense environmental information around the vehicle), the system comprising:
one or more ultrasonic sensors arranged on the vehicle, wherein the ultrasonic sensors are configured to (i) generate and emit sound signals into the environment around the vehicle, and (ii) receive, at the one or more ultrasonic sensors, the sound signals as reflected back toward the vehicle by at least one object in the environment (Paragraph [0150] teaches an ultrasonic transmitting module and ultrasonic receiving module; Paragraph [0161] teaches detecting an object based on reflected ultrasonic wave); and
a controller (Paragraph [0154] teaches the controller controls overall operation of object detection) configured to
calculate a threat score associated with the at least one object based on a distance of the object from the vehicle, a velocity of the object, and a direction of movement of the object relative to the vehicle (Paragraph [0210] teaches calculating a collision possibility based on distance between an object at the vehicle, the direction in which the object is positioned with respect to the vehicle, and the traveling speed of the object),
compare the threat score to at least one threshold (Paragraph [0209] teaches comparing the calculated collision possibility with a set probability), and
selectively generate and transmit an alert in response to a determination that the threat score is greater than the at least one threshold (Paragraph [0209] teaches determining a risk of accident exists when the calculated collision possibility is greater than or equal to the set probability; Paragraph [0211] teaches providing guidance information through a display or speaker based on the determination that there is a risk of accident).
As to claim 13, depending from the system of claim 9, Kim teaches wherein calculating the threat score associated with the at least one object includes assigning respective values to the distance of the object from the vehicle, the velocity of the object, and the direction of movement of the object relative to the vehicle (Paragraph [0240] teaches assigning a numerical rating value to the distance between the object and the vehicle, the recognition information of the direction in which the object is positioned, and the speed of the object).
As to claim 15, depending from the system of claim 9, Kim teaches wherein the at least one threshold includes a first threshold and a second threshold greater than the first threshold, wherein the controller is further configured to selectively ignore the at least one object in response to determining that the threat score is not greater than the first threshold (Paragraph [0212] teaches a first and second set probability, where only a safe driving message is given when the collision possibility is less than the second set probability).
As to claim 17, Kim teaches a processor (Paragraph [0115] teaches a controller implemented by at least one microprocessor) configured to execute instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein executing the instructions causes the processor (Paragraphs [0033] and [0278] teach a computer-readable recording medium having a computer program stored therein to perform a method) to:
using one or more ultrasonic sensors, generate and emit sound signals into an environment around a vehicle;
receive, at the one or more ultrasonic sensors, the sound signals as reflected back toward the vehicle by at least one object in the environment (Paragraph [0150] teaches an ultrasonic transmitting module and ultrasonic receiving module; Paragraph [0161] teaches detecting an object based on reflected ultrasonic wave);
calculate a threat score associated with the at least one object based on a distance of the object from the vehicle, a velocity of the object, and a direction of movement of the object relative to the vehicle (Paragraph [0210] teaches calculating a collision possibility based on distance between an object at the vehicle, the direction in which the object is positioned with respect to the vehicle, and the traveling speed of the object);
compare the threat score to at least one threshold (Paragraph [0209] teaches comparing the calculated collision possibility with a set probability); and
selectively generate and transmit an alert in response to a determination that the threat score is greater than the at least one threshold (Paragraph [0209] teaches determining a risk of accident exists when the calculated collision possibility is greater than or equal to the set probability; Paragraph [0211] teaches providing guidance information through a display or speaker based on the determination that there is a risk of accident).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim; US PG Pub #2021/0107477) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Kropinski et al. (Kropinski; US PG Pub #2006/0187009).
As to claim 2, depending from the method of claim 1, Kim does not explicitly teach the method further comprising, at the controller, selectively activating the one or more ultrasonic sensors in response to determining that at least one of (i) the vehicle is powered off and (ii) the vehicle is unoccupied.
In the field of collision avoidance, Kropinski teaches the method further comprising, at the controller, selectively activating the one or more ultrasonic sensors in response to determining that at least one of (i) the vehicle is powered off and (ii) the vehicle is unoccupied (Paragraphs [0007], [0015], and [0030] teach protecting an unattended parked vehicle; Paragraph [0009] teaches ultrasonic sensing; Paragraph [0023] teaches detecting that the vehicle is parked and ignition is turned off). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim with the unattended, parked vehicle protection of Kropinski because Kropinksi recognizes the desirable nature of provide a collision avoidance system for a vehicle in a parked state, implementing this with minimal production costs (Paragraph [0006]) and battery power conservation (Paragraph [0009]), and overcoming the shortcomings of the prior art (Paragraph [0030]).
As to claim 10, depending from the system of claim 9, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to selectively activate the one or more ultrasonic sensors in response to determining that at least one of (i) the vehicle is powered off and (ii) the vehicle is unoccupied.
In the field of collision avoidance, Kropinski teaches wherein the controller is configured to selectively activate the one or more ultrasonic sensors in response to determining that at least one of (i) the vehicle is powered off and (ii) the vehicle is unoccupied (Paragraphs [0007], [0015], and [0030] teach protecting an unattended parked vehicle; Paragraph [0009] teaches ultrasonic sensing; Paragraph [0023] teaches detecting that the vehicle is parked and ignition is turned off). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim with the unattended, parked vehicle protection of Kropinski because Kropinksi recognizes the desirable nature of provide a collision avoidance system for a vehicle in a parked state, implementing this with minimal production costs (Paragraph [0006]) and battery power conservation (Paragraph [0009]), and overcoming the shortcomings of the prior art (Paragraph [0030]).
As to claim 18, depending from the processor of claim 17, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein executing the instructions further causes the processor to selectively activate the one or more ultrasonic sensors in response to determining that at least one of (i) the vehicle is powered off and (ii) the vehicle is unoccupied.
In the field of collision avoidance, Kropinski teaches wherein executing the instructions further causes the processor to selectively activate the one or more ultrasonic sensors in response to determining that at least one of (i) the vehicle is powered off and (ii) the vehicle is unoccupied (Paragraphs [0007], [0015], and [0030] teach protecting an unattended parked vehicle; Paragraph [0009] teaches ultrasonic sensing; Paragraph [0023] teaches detecting that the vehicle is parked and ignition is turned off). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim with the unattended, parked vehicle protection of Kropinski because Kropinksi recognizes the desirable nature of provide a collision avoidance system for a vehicle in a parked state, implementing this with minimal production costs (Paragraph [0006]) and battery power conservation (Paragraph [0009]), and overcoming the shortcomings of the prior art (Paragraph [0030]).
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim; US PG Pub #2021/0107477) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Herman et al. (Herman; US PG Pub #2020/0409361 ).
As to claim 3, depending from the method of claim 1, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein calculating the threat score includes calculating the threat score further based on a number of moving objects detected within the environment.
In the field of vehicle data collection, Herman teaches wherein calculating the threat score includes calculating the threat score further based on a number of moving objects detected within the environment (Paragraph [0063] teaches a risk level as a classification of a number of objects near a vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim with the risk levels of Herman because this yields the predictable result of recognizing that there is more risk when there are more objects around the vehicle in order to increase the accuracy and reliability of the detection.
As to claim 11, depending from the system of claim 9, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein calculating the threat score includes calculating the threat score further based on a number of moving objects detected within the environment.
In the field of vehicle data collection, Herman teaches wherein calculating the threat score includes calculating the threat score further based on a number of moving objects detected within the environment (Paragraph [0063] teaches a risk level as a classification of a number of objects near a vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim with the risk levels of Herman because this yields the predictable result of recognizing that there is more risk when there are more objects around the vehicle in order to increase the accuracy and reliability of the detection.
As to claim 19, depending from the processor of claim 17, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein calculating the threat score includes calculating the threat score further based on a number of moving objects detected within the environment.
In the field of vehicle data collection, Herman teaches wherein calculating the threat score includes calculating the threat score further based on a number of moving objects detected within the environment (Paragraph [0063] teaches a risk level as a classification of a number of objects near a vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim with the risk levels of Herman because this yields the predictable result of recognizing that there is more risk when there are more objects around the vehicle in order to increase the accuracy and reliability of the detection.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim; US PG Pub #2021/0107477) as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Seshadri et al. (Seshadri; US PG Pub #2022/0017077).
As to claim 6, depending from the method of claim 5, Kim does not explicitly teach the method further comprising assigning respective weights to the respective values.
In the field of collision avoidance systems for vehicles, Seshadri teaches the method further comprising assigning respective weights to the respective values (Paragraph [0063] teaches applying different weights or confidence values to each data value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim with the weights of Seshadri because this gives a more accurate indication of the data (Paragraph [0063]).
As to claim 14, depending from the system of claim 13, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to assign respective weights to the respective values.
In the field of collision avoidance systems for vehicles, Seshadri teaches wherein the controller is further configured to assign respective weights to the respective values (Paragraph [0063] teaches applying different weights or confidence values to each data value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim with the weights of Seshadri because this gives a more accurate indication of the data (Paragraph [0063]).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim; US PG Pub #2021/0107477) as applied to claims 7 and 15 above, and further in view of Andersson et al. (Andersson; US PG Pub #2018/0233048).
As to claim 8, depending from the method of claim 7, Kim does not explicitly teach the method further comprising generating the alert in response to determining that the threat score is greater than the second threshold.
In the field of vehicle collision avoidance, Andersson teaches the method further comprising generating the alert in response to determining that the threat score is greater than the second threshold (Paragraph [0131] teaches providing an audible warning when the probability of a collision exceeds a second threshold limit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim with the threshold based alerting of Andersson because this creates a reliable warning system that only warns/intervenes when a collision is really probably and impending to gain higher trust (Paragraph [0051]).
As to claim 16, depending from the system of claim 15, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to generate the alert in response to determining that the threat score is greater than the second threshold.
In the field of vehicle collision avoidance, Andersson teaches wherein the controller is further configured to generate the alert in response to determining that the threat score is greater than the second threshold (Paragraph [0131] teaches providing an audible warning when the probability of a collision exceeds a second threshold limit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kim with the threshold based alerting of Andersson because this creates a reliable warning system that only warns/intervenes when a collision is really probably and impending to gain higher trust (Paragraph [0051]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claims 4, 12, and 20 recite an additional 4 pieces of information used to calculate the threat score. The prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or render obvious calculating a threat score based on a distance of the object from the vehicle, a velocity of the object, a direction of movement of the object relative to the vehicle, acceleration of the at least one object relative to the vehicle, free space information, a determination of whether the direction of movement of the at least one object will cause the at least one object to pass within a predetermined distance of the vehicle, and an amount of time an object is within a predetermined distance of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, the applicant argues, with respect to the independent claims, that Kim does not teach the detailed element of the claims with respect to the ultrasonic sensors. Specifically, the applicant argues that Kim only lists ultrasonic sensing as one of several possibilities and that the collision possibility of Kim is calculated using a type of sound generated by the object. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Cited paragraph [0161] of Kim explicitly states detecting and tracking objects based on reflected ultrasonic waves in order to calculate a distance to an object and a relative speed of the object based on the ultrasonic wave. Therefore, the use of ultrasonic waves is not merely listed and is instead clearly stated to use reflected ultrasonic waves to perform operations such as calculating a distance and a relative speed. Further, Kim teaches calculating collision possibility based on the distance between the object and the vehicle, a direction in which the object is positioned with respect to the vehicle, and the traveling speed of the object (Paragraph [0031]). Thus, Kim clearly provides for the use of emitting and receiving ultrasonic waves in order to calculate data to be used in collision possibility calculations.
On pages 9-10 of the filed response, the applicant similarly argues that Kim does not teach calculating a threat score based on distance, velocity, and direction of the object. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As seen in paragraphs [0031] and [0161] as argued above, and in combination with cited paragraph [0210], Kim teaches using reflected ultrasonic waves to calculate distance, velocity, and direction of the object to be used in collision possibility determination. Therefore, Kim teaches the argued subject matter.
The claims remain properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-3:00 and 4:00-5:00 EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights