CTNF 19/062,542 CTNF 97593 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 02/25/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "an obtainer" in claim 16 "a detector" in claim 16 "a group relationship determiner" in claim 16 "an executer" in claim 16 Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if: STEP 1 : the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or STEP 2 : the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: STEP 2A (PRONG 1) : Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? STEP 2A (PRONG 2) : Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 16, and 17 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below: STEP 1 : Do claims 1, 16, and 17 fall within one of the statutory categories ? Yes. The claims are directed toward a method including at least one step, an apparatus, and an apparatus. STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea ? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Claim 1. An information processing method executed by an information processing device, the information processing method comprising: obtaining sensing information generated by sensing a vicinity of a first mobile body that travels autonomously; detecting a second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, based on the sensing information obtained in the obtaining; determining, when at least two second mobile bodies are detected in the detecting as the second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, whether the at least two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, based on the sensing information; and executing, when the determining is made that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies. The method in claim 1, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of detecting a second mobile body, determining whether two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, and executing a predetermined operation. This is equivalent to a person mentally seeing the second mobile body, deducing if the two second mobile bodies are related, and doing a predetermined operation. Claim 16. An information processing device comprising: an obtainer that obtains sensing information generated by sensing a vicinity of a first mobile body that travels autonomously; a detector that detects a second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, based on the sensing information obtained by the obtainer; a group relationship determiner that determines, when the detector detects at least two second mobile bodies as the second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, whether the at least two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, based on the sensing information; and an executer that executes, when the group relationship determiner determines that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies. The method in claim 16, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of detecting a second mobile body, determining whether two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, and executing a predetermined operation. This is equivalent to a person mentally seeing the second mobile body, deducing if the two second mobile bodies are related, and doing a predetermined operation. Claim 17. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute: obtaining sensing information generated by sensing a vicinity of a first mobile body that travels autonomously; detecting a second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, based on the sensing information obtained in the obtaining; determining, when at least two second mobile bodies are detected in the detecting as the second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, whether the at least two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, based on the sensing information; and executing, when the determining is made that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies. The method in claim 17, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of detecting a second mobile body, determining whether two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, and executing a predetermined operation. This is equivalent to a person mentally seeing the second mobile body, deducing if the two second mobile bodies are related, and doing a predetermined operation. STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application: an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application: an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract “idea”). Claim 1. An information processing method executed by an information processing device, the information processing method comprising: obtaining sensing information generated by sensing a vicinity of a first mobile body that travels autonomously; detecting a second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, based on the sensing information obtained in the obtaining; determining, when at least two second mobile bodies are detected in the detecting as the second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, whether the at least two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, based on the sensing information; and executing, when the determining is made that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies. Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “…obtaining sensing information…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The limitation “…by an information processing device…” is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity such that it does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The information processing device merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The information processing device is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the obtaining, detecting, determining, and executing steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 16. An information processing device comprising: an obtainer that obtains sensing information generated by sensing a vicinity of a first mobile body that travels autonomously; a detector that detects a second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, based on the sensing information obtained by the obtainer; a group relationship determiner that determines, when the detector detects at least two second mobile bodies as the second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, whether the at least two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, based on the sensing information; and an executer that executes, when the group relationship determiner determines that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies. Claim 16 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “…obtains sensing information…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The limitations “An information processing device comprising: an obtainer…”, “a detector that…”, “…by the obtainer”, “a group relationship determiner that…”, “…when the detector…”, “and an executer that…”, and “when the group relationship determiner…” are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The information processing device comprising: an obtainer, a detector, a group relationship determiner, and an executer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The information processing device comprising: an obtainer, a detector, a group relationship determiner, and an executer are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the obtaining, detecting, determining, and executing steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 17. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute: obtaining sensing information generated by sensing a vicinity of a first mobile body that travels autonomously; detecting a second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, based on the sensing information obtained in the obtaining; determining, when at least two second mobile bodies are detected in the detecting as the second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, whether the at least two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, based on the sensing information; and executing, when the determining is made that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies. Claim 17 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “…obtaining sensing information…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The limitation “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute…” is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity such that it does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the obtaining, detecting, determining, and executing steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements: adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present. Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG , independent claims 1, 16, and 17 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “…by an information processing device…”, “An information processing device comprising: an obtainer…”, “a detector that…”, “…by the obtainer”, “a group relationship determiner that…”, “…when the detector…”, “and an executer that…”, “when the group relationship determiner…”, and “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute…” is/are merely means to apply the exception and do not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp ., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “…obtaining sensing information…”and “…obtains sensing information…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the obtaining, detecting, determining, and executing steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures |, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TL! Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and O/P Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Thus, since claims 1, 16, and 17 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 16, and 17 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Dependent claims 2-15 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more, such as the limitations in claim 5 that amount to insignificant extra solution activity using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above. As such, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-7, 12, 13, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI (US 20200184202 A1) in view of TOKITA (JP 2022016962 A) . Regarding Claim 1, SUZUKI teaches An information processing method executed by an information processing device, the information processing method comprising: obtaining sensing information generated by sensing a vicinity of a first mobile body that travels autonomously (See at least paragraph [0028], “The image analysis unit 40 analyzes the vehicle-mounted camera image and outputs the result of the analysis to the communication device 30. The image analysis unit 40 may be realized by one or more processors. The image analysis unit 40 may be included in the vehicle-mounted camera 20. The image analysis unit 40 may include a front side image analysis unit 41 that acquires the front side image from the front side camera 21 and analyzes the front side image. The image analysis unit 40 may include a lateral side image analysis unit 42 that acquires the lateral side image from the lateral side camera 22 and analyzes the lateral side image. The image analysis unit 40 may include a rear side image analysis unit 43 that acquires the rear side image from the rear side camera 23, acquires the in-vehicle image from the in-vehicle camera 24, and analyzes the rear side image and an image of a target behind the vehicle 1 that is included in the in-vehicle image” and paragraph [0051], “The behavior monitoring device 10 may output the result of the evaluation of the behavior of the person 2 to the vehicle 1 . In a case where there is a possibility that the person 2 performs an abnormal behavior, the behavior monitoring device 10 may output, to the vehicle 1 positioned within a predetermined area around the person 2 , an instruction to track the person 2 . In a case where the vehicle 1 travels based on the instruction to track the person 2 , the vehicle 1 may travel such that the vehicle-mounted camera 20 can image the person 2 . In a case where the vehicle 1 is subjected to autonomous driving control, the behavior monitoring device 10 may output autonomous driving control information such that the vehicle 1 travels tracking the person 2. In a case where the vehicle 1 is driven by a driver, the behavior monitoring device 10 may output information designating a traveling route for the driver and cause a car navigation system or the like installed in the vehicle 1 to display the information. When the vehicle 1 tracks the person 2 who possibly performs an abnormal behavior, occurrence of an abnormal behavior may be prevented. In the example shown in FIG. 1, the vehicle 1 provided with the vehicle-mounted camera 20 imaging the person 2b may continuously track the person 2b. Another vehicle 1 may acquire information about the position of the person 2b and start to track the person 2b such that the person 2b is imaged. As a result, the safety of an area is improved.”) ; detecting a second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, based on the sensing information obtained in the obtaining (See at least paragraph [0029], “The image analysis unit 40 detects an image of the person 2 or the group 3 including a plurality of the persons 2 from the vehicle-mounted camera image and outputs the image to the behavior monitoring device 10. The image of the person 2 or the group 3 may be referred to as a monitoring target image.”) ; determining, when at least two second mobile bodies are detected in the detecting as the second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, whether the at least two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, based on the sensing information (See at least paragraph [0042], “The behavior monitoring device 10 may detect information indicating that the person 2a and the person 2b are families, friends, or acquaintances, as the correlation information of the group 3. The behavior monitoring device 10 may detect information indicating that the person 2a and the person 2b have no acquaintance with each other, as the correlation information of the group 3.”) . SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and executing, when the determining is made that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies (See at least paragraph [0029], “The notification control unit 27 causes at least one of the display device 30 and the voice output device 40 to output a warning according to the distance from the vehicle to the person estimated by the distance estimation unit 26” and paragraph [0035], “When an adult, which is a first object having a relatively large detection frame size, and a child, which is a second object having a relatively small detection frame size, are detected in the same frame image, the notification control unit 27 , The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25. Specifically, when the child, which is the second object, is in the vicinity of the adult, which is the first object, the notification control unit 27 lowers the warning level relatively and uses the second object. If a child is not in the vicinity of the first object, an adult, the warning level is relatively high. The size of the detection frame of the first object and the size of the detection frame of the second object are, for example, 60 in the vertical direction of the detection frame of the second object with respect to the vertical size of the detection frame of the first object. Less than% may be a condition for the relative size difference.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to execute, when the determining is made that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0029], [0035].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). Regarding Claim 2, SUZUKI and TOKITA teach The information processing method according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches The information processing method according to further comprising: calculating, for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, an individual risk indicating a possibility of coming into contact with the first mobile body, based on a first position of the first mobile body and a second position of the second mobile body, wherein, when the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, the executing includes, as the predetermined operation: correcting the individual risk calculated for each of the at least two second mobile bodies (See at least paragraph [0035], “When an adult, which is a first object having a relatively large detection frame size, and a child, which is a second object having a relatively small detection frame size, are detected in the same frame image, the notification control unit 27 , The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25. Specifically, when the child, which is the second object, is in the vicinity of the adult, which is the first object, the notification control unit 27 lowers the warning level relatively and uses the second object. If a child is not in the vicinity of the first object, an adult, the warning level is relatively high. The size of the detection frame of the first object and the size of the detection frame of the second object are, for example, 60 in the vertical direction of the detection frame of the second object with respect to the vertical size of the detection frame of the first object. Less than% may be a condition for the relative size difference”, paragraph [0041], “FIG. 5 is a diagram showing a first flowchart of notification control processing by the image recognition device 20 according to the embodiment. When the object recognition unit 22 recognizes a person in the input image (Yes in S10), the distance estimation unit 26 estimates the distance from the vehicle to the person. When the distance to the person is more than the threshold value (No in S11), the notification control unit 27 causes the display device 30 to display the first level warning (S14). For example, a white detection frame is superimposed and displayed on the person on the screen”, and paragraph [0043], “When the person is a child (Yes in S12), the relationship estimation unit 25 determines whether or not the person who is a child is in the vicinity of an adult (S13). When present in the vicinity of an adult (Yes in S13), the notification control unit 27 causes the display device 30 to display a second level warning (S16). When it is not present in the vicinity of an adult (No in S13), the notification control unit 27 causes the display device 30 to display a third-level warning (S15). For example, the red detection frame is superimposed and displayed on the person on the screen.” The estimated distance between the vehicle, the first mobile body, and each person, the second mobile body, is based on their respective positions and represents proximity. The system adjusts warning levels based on the proximity and the relationship between the detected persons. When a predetermined relationship, such as a child and adult in proximity, is present, the warning level is changed relative to other situations, which corresponds to correcting the individual risk associated with each person.) ; and notifying at least one of the first mobile body or a terminal used by a remote supervisor who remotely supervises or operates the first mobile body, about information on the individual risk corrected (See at least paragraph [0029], “The notification control unit 27 causes at least one of the display device 30 and the voice output device 40 to output a warning according to the distance from the vehicle to the person estimated by the distance estimation unit 26”, paragraph [0032], “When a person is detected in the image captured by the image pickup device 10, the notification control unit 27 superimposes the detection frame of the person on the screen displayed on the display device 30”, and paragraph [0033], “When a person is detected in the image captured by the image pickup device 10 and the distance from the vehicle to the person is less than the threshold value, the notification control unit 27 causes the voice output device 40 to output a warning sound or a warning message. Further, the notification control unit 27 causes the voice output device 40 to output a warning sound or a warning message having a relatively low volume when the distance from the vehicle to the person is equal to or greater than the threshold value, and when the distance is less than the threshold value, the notification control unit 27 outputs a relatively low volume warning sound or a warning message. A loud warning sound or warning message may be output.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to calculate, for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, an individual risk indicating a possibility of coming into contact with the first mobile body, based on a first position of the first mobile body and a second position of the second mobile body, wherein, when the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, the executing includes, as the predetermined operation: correcting the individual risk calculated for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, and notifying at least one of the first mobile body about information on the individual risk corrected, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0029], [0033], [0035], [0041], [0043].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). Regarding Claim 3, SUZUKI and TOKITA teach The information processing method according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI teaches The information processing method according to further comprising: obtaining state information on a traveling state of the first mobile body (See at least paragraph [0026], “A position information acquisition device 25 may be further installed in the vehicle 1. The position information acquisition device 25 is connected to other components installed in the vehicle 1 such that the position information acquisition device 25 can communicate with the other components via a vehicle-mounted network such as a CAN or a dedicated line. The position information acquisition device 25 acquires information about the position of the vehicle 1.” The position of the vehicle corresponds to state information describing the traveling state of the first mobile body.). SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and determining, when the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, the second position and an attribute of each of the at least two second mobile bodies detected (See at least paragraph [0022], “When the calculated head and body is within the set range for adults (for example, 7 to 8 heads and bodies), the head and body determination unit 23 determines that the person is an adult. When the calculated head and body is within the set range for children (for example, 4 to 7 heads and bodies), the head and body determination unit 23 determines that the person is a child” and paragraph [0027], “The distance estimation unit 26 estimates the distance from the image pickup device 10 installed in the vehicle to the person based on the position of the detection frame of the detected person.”) , wherein the calculating of the individual risk is performed based on the state information obtained in the obtaining and the second position determined in the determining for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, and the determining whether the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship is performed based on the second position and the attribute determined for each of the at least two second mobile bodies (See at least paragraph [0022], “When the calculated head and body is within the set range for adults (for example, 7 to 8 heads and bodies), the head and body determination unit 23 determines that the person is an adult. When the calculated head and body is within the set range for children (for example, 4 to 7 heads and bodies), the head and body determination unit 23 determines that the person is a child”, paragraph [0025], “When a plurality of people are detected in the same frame image, the relationship estimation unit 25 determines whether or not the positions of the plurality of objects are close to each other, that is, whether they exist in the vicinity based on the positional relationship of the plurality of people”, paragraph [0035], “The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25”, and paragraph [0041], “FIG. 5 is a diagram showing a first flowchart of notification control processing by the image recognition device 20 according to the embodiment. When the object recognition unit 22 recognizes a person in the input image (Yes in S10), the distance estimation unit 26 estimates the distance from the vehicle to the person. When the distance to the person is more than the threshold value (No in S11), the notification control unit 27 causes the display device 30 to display the first level warning (S14). For example, a white detection frame is superimposed and displayed on the person on the screen.” The distance between the vehicle and each person represents positional information used to assess proximity, and the warning level is changed based on the information, corresponding to calculating risk based on position. The relationship between persons is determined based on position proximity and attributes such as adult or child.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to determine, when the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, the second position and an attribute of each of the at least two second mobile bodies detected, and wherein the calculating of the individual risk is performed based on the state information obtained in the obtaining and the second position determined in the determining for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, and the determining whether the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship is performed based on the second position and the attribute determined for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0022], [0025], [0027], [0035], [0041].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). Regarding Claim 4, SUZUKI and TOKITA teach The information processing method according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches The information processing method according to wherein the information on the individual risk corrected includes at least one of: control information for controlling the first mobile body (See at least paragraph [0035], “The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25” and paragraph [0047], “As described above, according to the present embodiment, even when a child is detected in the captured image in front of the vehicle, the warning level is changed depending on whether or not the child is in the vicinity of an adult. The warning method can be optimized. For example, if a child and a parent are walking on the sidewalk adjacent to each other in the same direction, it is a relatively safe situation. In the present embodiment, it is possible to prevent an excessive warning from being output in such a situation. On the contrary, if the child is acting alone, the risk is high. In that case, by raising the warning level, the driver can be more alert to the child.” Changing the warning level based on detected conditions corresponds to control information used to control operation of the first mobile body in response to assessed risk.) ; or notice information for providing notice to the remote supervisor, and in the notifying, at least one of the control information or the notice information in the information on the individual risk corrected is notified. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to utilize wherein the information on the individual risk corrected includes at least one of: control information for controlling the first mobile body, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0035].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). Regarding Claim 5, SUZUKI and TOKITA teach The information processing method according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI teaches The information processing method according to wherein the sensing information is video information that includes at least one piece of image information generated by capturing the vicinity of the first mobile body (See at least paragraph [0027], “The vehicle-mounted camera 20 may be provided with at least one of a front side camera 21, a lateral side camera 22, a rear side camera 23 and an in-vehicle camera 24 as shown in FIG. 3. The front side camera 21 images a target positioned in front of the vehicle 1. An image captured by the front side camera 21 may be referred to as a front side image. The lateral side camera 22 images a target positioned beside the vehicle 1. An image captured by the lateral side camera 22 may be referred to as a lateral side image. The rear side camera 23 images a target positioned behind the vehicle 1. An image captured by the rear side camera 23 may be referred to as a rear side image. The in-vehicle camera 24 images a target positioned inside the vehicle cabin of the vehicle 1 and a target positioned behind the vehicle 1. An image captured by the in-vehicle camera 24 may be referred to as an in-vehicle image” and paragraph [0028], “The image analysis unit 40 analyzes the vehicle-mounted camera image and outputs the result of the analysis to the communication device 30. The image analysis unit 40 may be realized by one or more processors. The image analysis unit 40 may be included in the vehicle-mounted camera 20. The image analysis unit 40 may include a front side image analysis unit 41 that acquires the front side image from the front side camera 21 and analyzes the front side image. The image analysis unit 40 may include a lateral side image analysis unit 42 that acquires the lateral side image from the lateral side camera 22 and analyzes the lateral side image. The image analysis unit 40 may include a rear side image analysis unit 43 that acquires the rear side image from the rear side camera 23, acquires the in-vehicle image from the in-vehicle camera 24, and analyzes the rear side image and an image of a target behind the vehicle 1 that is included in the in-vehicle image.”). Regarding Claim 6, SUZUKI and TOKITA teach The information processing method according to claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the state information includes a traveling speed, a traveling direction, and the traveling state of the first mobile body (See at least paragraph [0025], “The vehicle-mounted camera 20 images a target positioned in the vicinity of the vehicle 1 or positioned in a vehicle cabin. An image captured by the vehicle-mounted camera 20 may be referred to as a vehicle-mounted camera image. The following description will be made on an assumption that the vehicle-mounted camera image is associated with information relating to a position where the vehicle-mounted camera image is captured or information relating to a timing when the vehicle-mounted camera image is captured. The vehicle-mounted camera image may include a still image and may include a moving image” and paragraph [0026], “A position information acquisition device 25 may be further installed in the vehicle 1. The position information acquisition device 25 is connected to other components installed in the vehicle 1 such that the position information acquisition device 25 can communicate with the other components via a vehicle-mounted network such as a CAN or a dedicated line. The position information acquisition device 25 acquires information about the position of the vehicle 1. The position information acquisition device 25 may include a receiver for a satellite navigational system. The examples of the receiver for the satellite navigational system may include a global positioning system (GPS) receiver. The following description will be made on an assumption that the vehicle 1 in the present embodiment can acquire information about the position of the vehicle 1 by using the position information acquisition device 25. The vehicle 1 may associate the vehicle-mounted camera image with the information about the position of the vehicle 1, which is acquired by means of the position information acquisition device 25, as the information relating to a position where the vehicle-mounted camera image is captured.” The association of image information with vehicle position and timing, together with moving image data, corresponds to the vehicle’s movement over time, including traveling speed, direction, and traveling state.). Regarding Claim 7, SUZUKI and TOKITA teach The information processing method according to claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches The information processing method according to wherein in the correcting, when the individual risk is different for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, the individual risk calculated for a second mobile body corresponding to a higher individual risk than another second mobile body among the at least two second mobile bodies is reduced based on at least one of a type or the attribute of each of the at least two second mobile bodies (See at least paragraph [0022], “When the calculated head and body is within the set range for adults (for example, 7 to 8 heads and bodies), the head and body determination unit 23 determines that the person is an adult. When the calculated head and body is within the set range for children (for example, 4 to 7 heads and bodies), the head and body determination unit 23 determines that the person is a child” and paragraph [0035], “When an adult, which is a first object having a relatively large detection frame size, and a child, which is a second object having a relatively small detection frame size, are detected in the same frame image, the notification control unit 27 , The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25. Specifically, when the child, which is the second object, is in the vicinity of the adult, which is the first object, the notification control unit 27 lowers the warning level relatively and uses the second object. If a child is not in the vicinity of the first object, an adult, the warning level is relatively high. The size of the detection frame of the first object and the size of the detection frame of the second object are, for example, 60 in the vertical direction of the detection frame of the second object with respect to the vertical size of the detection frame of the first object. Less than% may be a condition for the relative size difference.” The adjustment of the warning level, including lowering the warning level when a child is in the vicinity of an adult and increasing it otherwise, corresponds to reducing a higher individual risk based on the type or attribute of the detected mobile bodies.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to utilize wherein in the correcting, when the individual risk is different for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, the individual risk calculated for a second mobile body corresponding to a higher individual risk than another second mobile body among the at least two second mobile bodies is reduced based on at least one of a type or the attribute of each of the at least two second mobile bodies, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0022], [0035].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). Regarding Claim 12, SUZUKI and TOKITA teach The information processing method according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI teaches The information processing method according to wherein the determining whether the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship is performed based on group determination information on at least one of a distance, line of sight, physical connection, belongings, movements, ages, or voices, detected between the at least two second mobile bodies (See at least paragraph [0041], “The correlation information may include information indicating a distance between the person 2a and the person 2b. The behavior monitoring device 10 may detect that the person 2a and the person 2b are separate from each other by a first distance, as the correlation information of the group 3. As the correlation information of the group 3, the behavior monitoring device 10 may detect that a state where the person 2a and the person 2b are separate from each other by the first distance has continued for a predetermined time based on information relating to the behavior of the person 2a or the person 2b” and paragraph [0042], “The behavior monitoring device 10 may detect information indicating that the person 2a and the person 2b are families, friends, or acquaintances, as the correlation information of the group 3. The behavior monitoring device 10 may detect information indicating that the person 2a and the person 2b have no acquaintance with each other, as the correlation information of the group 3.”). Regarding Claim 13, SUZUKI and TOKITA teach The information processing method according to claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches The information processing method according to further comprising: generating, as the control information, based on the individual risk corrected, information for causing the first mobile body to perform at least one of: control for making a temporary stop; control for performing an avoidance action; control for calling attention using speech (See at least paragraph [0046], “At that time, in order to warn the driver more strongly about the change in the situation, the notification control unit 27 displays, for example, superimposing a blinking red detection frame on the person on the screen. Further, the notification control unit 27 may cause the voice output device 40 to output a warning message such as "Be careful of the child in front". This allows the driver to be aware that there is a danger that the child in front will jump out towards the vehicle.”) ; or control for turning a light on. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to generate, as the control information, based on the individual risk corrected, information for causing the first mobile body to perform control for calling attention using speech, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0046].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). Regarding Claim 16, SUZUKI teaches An information processing device comprising: an obtainer that obtains sensing information generated by sensing a vicinity of a first mobile body that travels autonomously (See at least paragraph [0028], “The image analysis unit 40 analyzes the vehicle-mounted camera image and outputs the result of the analysis to the communication device 30. The image analysis unit 40 may be realized by one or more processors. The image analysis unit 40 may be included in the vehicle-mounted camera 20. The image analysis unit 40 may include a front side image analysis unit 41 that acquires the front side image from the front side camera 21 and analyzes the front side image. The image analysis unit 40 may include a lateral side image analysis unit 42 that acquires the lateral side image from the lateral side camera 22 and analyzes the lateral side image. The image analysis unit 40 may include a rear side image analysis unit 43 that acquires the rear side image from the rear side camera 23, acquires the in-vehicle image from the in-vehicle camera 24, and analyzes the rear side image and an image of a target behind the vehicle 1 that is included in the in-vehicle image” and paragraph [0051], “The behavior monitoring device 10 may output the result of the evaluation of the behavior of the person 2 to the vehicle 1 . In a case where there is a possibility that the person 2 performs an abnormal behavior, the behavior monitoring device 10 may output, to the vehicle 1 positioned within a predetermined area around the person 2 , an instruction to track the person 2 . In a case where the vehicle 1 travels based on the instruction to track the person 2 , the vehicle 1 may travel such that the vehicle-mounted camera 20 can image the person 2 . In a case where the vehicle 1 is subjected to autonomous driving control, the behavior monitoring device 10 may output autonomous driving control information such that the vehicle 1 travels tracking the person 2. In a case where the vehicle 1 is driven by a driver, the behavior monitoring device 10 may output information designating a traveling route for the driver and cause a car navigation system or the like installed in the vehicle 1 to display the information. When the vehicle 1 tracks the person 2 who possibly performs an abnormal behavior, occurrence of an abnormal behavior may be prevented. In the example shown in FIG. 1, the vehicle 1 provided with the vehicle-mounted camera 20 imaging the person 2b may continuously track the person 2b. Another vehicle 1 may acquire information about the position of the person 2b and start to track the person 2b such that the person 2b is imaged. As a result, the safety of an area is improved.”) ; a detector that detects a second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, based on the sensing information obtained by the obtainer (See at least paragraph [0029], “The image analysis unit 40 detects an image of the person 2 or the group 3 including a plurality of the persons 2 from the vehicle-mounted camera image and outputs the image to the behavior monitoring device 10. The image of the person 2 or the group 3 may be referred to as a monitoring target image.”) ; a group relationship determiner that determines, when the detector detects at least two second mobile bodies as the second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, whether the at least two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, based on the sensing information (See at least paragraph [0042], “The behavior monitoring device 10 may detect information indicating that the person 2a and the person 2b are families, friends, or acquaintances, as the correlation information of the group 3. The behavior monitoring device 10 may detect information indicating that the person 2a and the person 2b have no acquaintance with each other, as the correlation information of the group 3.”) . SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and an executer that executes, when the group relationship determiner determines that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies (See at least paragraph [0029], “The notification control unit 27 causes at least one of the display device 30 and the voice output device 40 to output a warning according to the distance from the vehicle to the person estimated by the distance estimation unit 26” and paragraph [0035], “When an adult, which is a first object having a relatively large detection frame size, and a child, which is a second object having a relatively small detection frame size, are detected in the same frame image, the notification control unit 27 , The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25. Specifically, when the child, which is the second object, is in the vicinity of the adult, which is the first object, the notification control unit 27 lowers the warning level relatively and uses the second object. If a child is not in the vicinity of the first object, an adult, the warning level is relatively high. The size of the detection frame of the first object and the size of the detection frame of the second object are, for example, 60 in the vertical direction of the detection frame of the second object with respect to the vertical size of the detection frame of the first object. Less than% may be a condition for the relative size difference.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to utilize an executer that executes, when the group relationship determiner determines that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0029], [0035].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). Regarding Claim 17, SUZUKI teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute: obtaining sensing information generated by sensing a vicinity of a first mobile body that travels autonomously (See at least paragraph [0018], “The server 50 is provided with a server controller 51, a server communication unit 52, and a server storage unit 53. The server controller 51 may include one or more processors. The server communication unit 52 may include a communication module and may communicate with the communication device 30 of the vehicle 1. The server storage unit 53 may include one or more memories. In the present embodiment, the “memories” are semiconductor memories, magnetic memories, optical memories, or the like. However, the memories are not limited thereto. Each memory included in the server storage unit 53 may function as a main storage device, an auxiliary storage device, or a cache memory, for example. The server storage unit 53 may include an electromagnetic storage medium such as a magnetic disk. The server storage unit 53 stores random information used to operate the server 50. For example, the server storage unit 53 may store a system program, an application program, or the like”, paragraph [0028], “The image analysis unit 40 analyzes the vehicle-mounted camera image and outputs the result of the analysis to the communication device 30. The image analysis unit 40 may be realized by one or more processors. The image analysis unit 40 may be included in the vehicle-mounted camera 20. The image analysis unit 40 may include a front side image analysis unit 41 that acquires the front side image from the front side camera 21 and analyzes the front side image. The image analysis unit 40 may include a lateral side image analysis unit 42 that acquires the lateral side image from the lateral side camera 22 and analyzes the lateral side image. The image analysis unit 40 may include a rear side image analysis unit 43 that acquires the rear side image from the rear side camera 23, acquires the in-vehicle image from the in-vehicle camera 24, and analyzes the rear side image and an image of a target behind the vehicle 1 that is included in the in-vehicle image”, and paragraph [0051], “The behavior monitoring device 10 may output the result of the evaluation of the behavior of the person 2 to the vehicle 1 . In a case where there is a possibility that the person 2 performs an abnormal behavior, the behavior monitoring device 10 may output, to the vehicle 1 positioned within a predetermined area around the person 2 , an instruction to track the person 2 . In a case where the vehicle 1 travels based on the instruction to track the person 2 , the vehicle 1 may travel such that the vehicle-mounted camera 20 can image the person 2 . In a case where the vehicle 1 is subjected to autonomous driving control, the behavior monitoring device 10 may output autonomous driving control information such that the vehicle 1 travels tracking the person 2. In a case where the vehicle 1 is driven by a driver, the behavior monitoring device 10 may output information designating a traveling route for the driver and cause a car navigation system or the like installed in the vehicle 1 to display the information. When the vehicle 1 tracks the person 2 who possibly performs an abnormal behavior, occurrence of an abnormal behavior may be prevented. In the example shown in FIG. 1, the vehicle 1 provided with the vehicle-mounted camera 20 imaging the person 2b may continuously track the person 2b. Another vehicle 1 may acquire information about the position of the person 2b and start to track the person 2b such that the person 2b is imaged. As a result, the safety of an area is improved.” The server storage unit storing a system program or application program in a memory or on a magnetic disk corresponds to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program.) ; detecting a second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, based on the sensing information obtained in the obtaining (See at least paragraph [0029], “The image analysis unit 40 detects an image of the person 2 or the group 3 including a plurality of the persons 2 from the vehicle-mounted camera image and outputs the image to the behavior monitoring device 10. The image of the person 2 or the group 3 may be referred to as a monitoring target image.”) ; determining, when at least two second mobile bodies are detected in the detecting as the second mobile body present in the vicinity of the first mobile body, whether the at least two second mobile bodies have a predetermined relationship, based on the sensing information (See at least paragraph [0042], “The behavior monitoring device 10 may detect information indicating that the person 2a and the person 2b are families, friends, or acquaintances, as the correlation information of the group 3. The behavior monitoring device 10 may detect information indicating that the person 2a and the person 2b have no acquaintance with each other, as the correlation information of the group 3.”) . SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and executing, when the determining is made that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies (See at least paragraph [0029], “The notification control unit 27 causes at least one of the display device 30 and the voice output device 40 to output a warning according to the distance from the vehicle to the person estimated by the distance estimation unit 26” and paragraph [0035], “When an adult, which is a first object having a relatively large detection frame size, and a child, which is a second object having a relatively small detection frame size, are detected in the same frame image, the notification control unit 27 , The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25. Specifically, when the child, which is the second object, is in the vicinity of the adult, which is the first object, the notification control unit 27 lowers the warning level relatively and uses the second object. If a child is not in the vicinity of the first object, an adult, the warning level is relatively high. The size of the detection frame of the first object and the size of the detection frame of the second object are, for example, 60 in the vertical direction of the detection frame of the second object with respect to the vertical size of the detection frame of the first object. Less than% may be a condition for the relative size difference.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to execute, when the determining is made that the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, a predetermined operation to avoid contact between the first mobile body and the at least two second mobile bodies, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0029], [0035].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI (US 20200184202 A1) in view of TOKITA (JP 2022016962 A) and OYAMA (US 20210200241 A1) . Regarding Claim 8, SUZUKI and TOKITA teach The information processing method according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches The information processing method according to wherein in the correcting, the individual risk calculated for each of the at least two second mobile bodies is corrected (See at least paragraph [0035], “When an adult, which is a first object having a relatively large detection frame size, and a child, which is a second object having a relatively small detection frame size, are detected in the same frame image, the notification control unit 27 , The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25. Specifically, when the child, which is the second object, is in the vicinity of the adult, which is the first object, the notification control unit 27 lowers the warning level relatively and uses the second object. If a child is not in the vicinity of the first object, an adult, the warning level is relatively high. The size of the detection frame of the first object and the size of the detection frame of the second object are, for example, 60 in the vertical direction of the detection frame of the second object with respect to the vertical size of the detection frame of the first object. Less than% may be a condition for the relative size difference.” The warning level corresponds to an individual risk, and changing the warning level corresponds to correcting the individual risk.). SUZUKI and TOKITA do not explicitly disclose, however, OYAMA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches with reference to a table that includes a type, an attribute, and a correction value for each of the at last two second mobile bodies (See at least Fig. 15, paragraph [0146], “The external communication ECU 27 may also correct other information to be corrected accordingly with the correction of the time, for example, the position and the speed of the vehicle 100”, paragraph [0221], “A priority table 161 illustrated in FIG. 15 may be recorded in the server memory 13, for example. In this case, the server CPU 14 may read, in the process in Step ST214, the priority table 161 from the server memory 13 and use the priority table 161”, and paragraph [0222], “FIG. 15 illustrates examples of the attribute of the vehicle 100. The examples of the attribute may include a type, a model, a rank, a model year, mobility performance, and adaptability to platooning of the vehicle 100, an organization to which the vehicle 100 belongs, and a driving history, movement time in this drive, and a degree of fatigue of the user, e.g., the driver, of the vehicle 100.” The priority table associates attributes with control adjustments, and the correction of vehicle parameters corresponds to a correction value for each mobile body.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to calculate, for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, an individual risk indicating a possibility of coming into contact with the first mobile body, based on a first position of the first mobile body and a second position of the second mobile body, wherein, when the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, the executing includes, as the predetermined operation: correcting the individual risk calculated for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, and notifying at least one of the first mobile body about information on the individual risk corrected, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0029], [0033], [0035], [0041], [0043].), and with reference to a table that includes a type, an attribute, and a correction value for each of the at last two second mobile bodies, as taught by OYAMA (see paragraph [0146], [0221], [0222].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be increasing safety and vehicle movement efficiency, as taught by OYAMA (See paragraph [0041].). Regarding Claim 9, SUZUKI, TOKITA, and OYAMA teach The information processing method according to claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in the correcting, when the at least two second mobile bodies detected are two second mobile bodies that are one person aged at least a predetermined age and one child under the predetermined age, the individual risk calculated for a second mobile body that is the one child out of the two second mobile bodies is reduced (See at least paragraph [0035], “When an adult, which is a first object having a relatively large detection frame size, and a child, which is a second object having a relatively small detection frame size, are detected in the same frame image, the notification control unit 27 , The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25. Specifically, when the child, which is the second object, is in the vicinity of the adult, which is the first object, the notification control unit 27 lowers the warning level relatively and uses the second object. If a child is not in the vicinity of the first object, an adult, the warning level is relatively high. The size of the detection frame of the first object and the size of the detection frame of the second object are, for example, 60 in the vertical direction of the detection frame of the second object with respect to the vertical size of the detection frame of the first object. Less than% may be a condition for the relative size difference” and paragraph [0042], “When the distance to the person is less than the threshold value (Yes in S11), the head and body determination unit 23 determines whether the person is an adult or a child (S12). In the case of an adult (No in S12), the notification control unit 27 causes the display device 30 to display a second level warning (S16). For example, the yellow detection frame is superimposed and displayed on the person on the screen.” Lowering the warning level for the child corresponds to reducing the individual risk.). SUZUKI and TOKITA do not explicitly disclose, however, OYAMA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches with reference to the table (See at least Fig. 15, paragraph [0146], “The external communication ECU 27 may also correct other information to be corrected accordingly with the correction of the time, for example, the position and the speed of the vehicle 100”, paragraph [0221], “A priority table 161 illustrated in FIG. 15 may be recorded in the server memory 13, for example. In this case, the server CPU 14 may read, in the process in Step ST214, the priority table 161 from the server memory 13 and use the priority table 161”, and paragraph [0222], “FIG. 15 illustrates examples of the attribute of the vehicle 100. The examples of the attribute may include a type, a model, a rank, a model year, mobility performance, and adaptability to platooning of the vehicle 100, an organization to which the vehicle 100 belongs, and a driving history, movement time in this drive, and a degree of fatigue of the user, e.g., the driver, of the vehicle 100.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to calculate, for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, an individual risk indicating a possibility of coming into contact with the first mobile body, based on a first position of the first mobile body and a second position of the second mobile body, wherein, when the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, the executing includes, as the predetermined operation: correcting the individual risk calculated for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, and notifying at least one of the first mobile body about information on the individual risk corrected, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0029], [0033], [0035], [0041], [0043].), and with reference to a table that includes a type, an attribute, and a correction value for each of the at last two second mobile bodies, as taught by OYAMA (see paragraph [0146], [0221], [0222].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be increasing safety and vehicle movement efficiency, as taught by OYAMA (See paragraph [0041].). Regarding Claim 10, SUZUKI, TOKITA, and OYAMA teach The information processing method according to claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in the correcting, when each of the at least two second mobile bodies detected is a child under a predetermined age, the individual risk calculated for each of the at least two second mobile bodies is increased (See at least paragraph [0035], “When an adult, which is a first object having a relatively large detection frame size, and a child, which is a second object having a relatively small detection frame size, are detected in the same frame image, the notification control unit 27 , The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25. Specifically, when the child, which is the second object, is in the vicinity of the adult, which is the first object, the notification control unit 27 lowers the warning level relatively and uses the second object. If a child is not in the vicinity of the first object, an adult, the warning level is relatively high. The size of the detection frame of the first object and the size of the detection frame of the second object are, for example, 60 in the vertical direction of the detection frame of the second object with respect to the vertical size of the detection frame of the first object. Less than% may be a condition for the relative size difference” and paragraph [0042], “When the distance to the person is less than the threshold value (Yes in S11), the head and body determination unit 23 determines whether the person is an adult or a child (S12). In the case of an adult (No in S12), the notification control unit 27 causes the display device 30 to display a second level warning (S16). For example, the yellow detection frame is superimposed and displayed on the person on the screen.” A higher warning level corresponds to an increased individual risk.). SUZUKI and TOKITA do not explicitly disclose, however, OYAMA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches with reference to the table (See at least Fig. 15, paragraph [0146], “The external communication ECU 27 may also correct other information to be corrected accordingly with the correction of the time, for example, the position and the speed of the vehicle 100”, paragraph [0221], “A priority table 161 illustrated in FIG. 15 may be recorded in the server memory 13, for example. In this case, the server CPU 14 may read, in the process in Step ST214, the priority table 161 from the server memory 13 and use the priority table 161”, and paragraph [0222], “FIG. 15 illustrates examples of the attribute of the vehicle 100. The examples of the attribute may include a type, a model, a rank, a model year, mobility performance, and adaptability to platooning of the vehicle 100, an organization to which the vehicle 100 belongs, and a driving history, movement time in this drive, and a degree of fatigue of the user, e.g., the driver, of the vehicle 100.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to calculate, for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, an individual risk indicating a possibility of coming into contact with the first mobile body, based on a first position of the first mobile body and a second position of the second mobile body, wherein, when the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, the executing includes, as the predetermined operation: correcting the individual risk calculated for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, and notifying at least one of the first mobile body about information on the individual risk corrected, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0029], [0033], [0035], [0041], [0043].), and with reference to a table that includes a type, an attribute, and a correction value for each of the at last two second mobile bodies, as taught by OYAMA (see paragraph [0146], [0221], [0222].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be increasing safety and vehicle movement efficiency, as taught by OYAMA (See paragraph [0041].). Regarding Claim 11, SUZUKI, TOKITA, and OYAMA teach The information processing method according to claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches The information processing method according to wherein in the correcting, when the at least two second mobile bodies detected include one adult and two or more children under a predetermined age, the individual risk calculated for each of two or more second mobile bodies that are the two or more children out of the at least two second mobile bodies is reduced (See at least paragraph [0035], “When an adult, which is a first object having a relatively large detection frame size, and a child, which is a second object having a relatively small detection frame size, are detected in the same frame image, the notification control unit 27 , The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25. Specifically, when the child, which is the second object, is in the vicinity of the adult, which is the first object, the notification control unit 27 lowers the warning level relatively and uses the second object. If a child is not in the vicinity of the first object, an adult, the warning level is relatively high. The size of the detection frame of the first object and the size of the detection frame of the second object are, for example, 60 in the vertical direction of the detection frame of the second object with respect to the vertical size of the detection frame of the first object. Less than% may be a condition for the relative size difference” and paragraph [0042], “When the distance to the person is less than the threshold value (Yes in S11), the head and body determination unit 23 determines whether the person is an adult or a child (S12). In the case of an adult (No in S12), the notification control unit 27 causes the display device 30 to display a second level warning (S16). For example, the yellow detection frame is superimposed and displayed on the person on the screen.” Lowering the warning level for each child corresponds to reducing the individual risk for each of the children.). SUZUKI and TOKITA do not explicitly disclose, however, OYAMA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches with reference to the table (See at least Fig. 15, paragraph [0146], “The external communication ECU 27 may also correct other information to be corrected accordingly with the correction of the time, for example, the position and the speed of the vehicle 100”, paragraph [0221], “A priority table 161 illustrated in FIG. 15 may be recorded in the server memory 13, for example. In this case, the server CPU 14 may read, in the process in Step ST214, the priority table 161 from the server memory 13 and use the priority table 161”, and paragraph [0222], “FIG. 15 illustrates examples of the attribute of the vehicle 100. The examples of the attribute may include a type, a model, a rank, a model year, mobility performance, and adaptability to platooning of the vehicle 100, an organization to which the vehicle 100 belongs, and a driving history, movement time in this drive, and a degree of fatigue of the user, e.g., the driver, of the vehicle 100.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to calculate, for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, an individual risk indicating a possibility of coming into contact with the first mobile body, based on a first position of the first mobile body and a second position of the second mobile body, wherein, when the at least two second mobile bodies have the predetermined relationship, the executing includes, as the predetermined operation: correcting the individual risk calculated for each of the at least two second mobile bodies, and notifying at least one of the first mobile body about information on the individual risk corrected, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0029], [0033], [0035], [0041], [0043].), and with reference to a table that includes a type, an attribute, and a correction value for each of the at last two second mobile bodies, as taught by OYAMA (see paragraph [0146], [0221], [0222].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be increasing safety and vehicle movement efficiency, as taught by OYAMA (See paragraph [0041].) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI (US 20200184202 A1) in view of TOKITA (JP 2022016962 A) and SATO (US 20210039653 A1) . Regarding Claim 14, SUZUKI and TOKITA teach The information processing method according to claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: generating, as the notice information, based on the individual risk corrected, alert information (See at least paragraph [0035], “When an adult, which is a first object having a relatively large detection frame size, and a child, which is a second object having a relatively small detection frame size, are detected in the same frame image, the notification control unit 27 , The warning level is changed according to the determination result of the relationship estimation unit 25. Specifically, when the child, which is the second object, is in the vicinity of the adult, which is the first object, the notification control unit 27 lowers the warning level relatively and uses the second object. If a child is not in the vicinity of the first object, an adult, the warning level is relatively high. The size of the detection frame of the first object and the size of the detection frame of the second object are, for example, 60 in the vertical direction of the detection frame of the second object with respect to the vertical size of the detection frame of the first object. Less than% may be a condition for the relative size difference.”). SUZUKI and TOKITA do not explicitly disclose, however, SATO, in the same field of endeavor, teaches indicating an alert that encourages the remote supervisor to pay close attention to the first mobile body or to operate the first mobile body (See at least paragraph [0027], “a transmitting unit that, when the determination processing unit determines that the monitoring-required determination condition is satisfied, transmits monitoring-required notification information indicating that the driving situation of the driver reaches a monitoring-required level to the manager terminal together with the identification information” and paragraph [0136], “The manager terminal 80 is not limited to that mode as long as the manager terminal is a device configured to communicate with the server 60, and for example, is configured by a general-purpose device such as a smartphone, a tablet PC, a notebook PC, a desktop PC, or the like, or a dedicated terminal related to the management assistance system 1. When the manager terminal 80 is a general-purpose device, a dedicated application program to adapt to the operation of the management assistance system 1 may be installed. The manager terminal 80 may be stored at a position spaced apart from the installing location of the server 60, or may be held (carried) by the manager.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA and SATO such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to utilize wherein the information on the individual risk corrected includes at least one of: control information for controlling the first mobile body and generating, as the notice information, based on the individual risk corrected, alert information, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0035].), and indicating an alert that encourages the remote supervisor to pay close attention to the first mobile body, as taught by SATO (See paragraph [0027], [0136].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be increase drive safety through monitoring, as taught by SATO (See paragraph [0014].). Regarding Claim 15, SUZUKI, TOKITA, and SATO teach The information processing method according to claim 14, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. SUZUKI does not explicitly disclose, however, TOKITA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches The information processing method according to wherein the notice information includes information indicating at least one of: a size of alert display indicating the alert; a color of the alert display (See at least paragraph [0041], “FIG. 5 is a diagram showing a first flowchart of notification control processing by the image recognition device 20 according to the embodiment. When the object recognition unit 22 recognizes a person in the input image (Yes in S10), the distance estimation unit 26 estimates the distance from the vehicle to the person. When the distance to the person is more than the threshold value (No in S11), the notification control unit 27 causes the display device 30 to display the first level warning (S14). For example, a white detection frame is superimposed and displayed on the person on the screen”, paragraph [0042], “When the distance to the person is less than the threshold value (Yes in S11), the head and body determination unit 23 determines whether the person is an adult or a child (S12). In the case of an adult (No in S12), the notification control unit 27 causes the display device 30 to display a second level warning (S16). For example, the yellow detection frame is superimposed and displayed on the person on the screen”, and paragraph [0043], “When the person is a child (Yes in S12), the relationship estimation unit 25 determines whether or not the person who is a child is in the vicinity of an adult (S13). When present in the vicinity of an adult (Yes in S13), the notification control unit 27 causes the display device 30 to display a second level warning (S16). When it is not present in the vicinity of an adult (No in S13), the notification control unit 27 causes the display device 30 to display a third-level warning (S15). For example, the red detection frame is superimposed and displayed on the person on the screen.”) ; whether to flash the alert display; a volume level of notice sound for the alert; or a sound pitch of the notice sound. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of SUZUKI with the teachings of TOKITA and SATO such that the behavior monitoring system of SUZUKI is further configured to utilize wherein the information on the individual risk corrected includes at least one of: control information for controlling the first mobile body, generating, as the notice information, based on the individual risk corrected, alert information, and according to wherein the notice information includes information indicating at least a color of the alert display, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0035], [0041]-[0043].), and indicating an alert that encourages the remote supervisor to pay close attention to the first mobile body, as taught by SATO (See paragraph [0027], [0136].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be optimizing a warning method caused by detection of an object in an image, as taught by TOKITA (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be increase drive safety through monitoring, as taught by SATO (See paragraph [0014].). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEWEL ASHLEY KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:30pm. 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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. /JEWEL A KUNTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3666 /ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 2 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 3 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 4 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 5 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 6 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 7 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 8 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 9 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 10 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 11 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 12 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 13 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 14 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 15 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 16 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 17 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 18 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 19 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 20 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 21 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 22 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 23 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 24 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 25 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 26 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 27 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 28 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 29 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 30 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 31 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 32 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 33 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 34 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 35 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 36 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 37 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 38 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 39 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 40 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 41 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 42 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 43 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 44 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 45 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 46 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/062,542 Page 47 Art Unit: 3666
Prosecution Insights