DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song Pub. No.: US 2023/0150534 (Hereinafter “Song”) in view of SUZUKI et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0265097 (Hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Rejection Claim 1, Song discloses an image processing device, comprising a computation device to which an image obtained by using an imaging device to capture an area in front of a vehicle is inputted (see paragraph [0032]), wherein the computation device calculates, for each of a plurality of regions included in the image (see paragraph [0032]), a parallax of a subject image included in the regions (see paragraph [0058]), and determines whether or not a tunnel exit exists in a specific region among the plurality of regions on the basis of the position of a region (see paragraphs [0090] and [0094]),
Song fails to teach:
among the plurality of regions, for which the parallax of the subject image cannot be calculated and a parallax calculated in another region located near the region for which the parallax of the subject image cannot be calculated.
In analogous art, Suzuki teaches:
among the plurality of regions, for which the parallax of the subject image cannot be calculated and a parallax calculated in another region located near the region for which the parallax of the subject image cannot be calculated (see paragraph [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Song with the
teaching as taught by Suzuki in order to increase driver safety by providing a vehicle control apparatus that can inform a driver that a host vehicle deviates from a travel lane on the basis of the position (course difference) of the host vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2, Song in view of Suzuki teach the device as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein, when there is a region for which the parallax of the subject image cannot be calculated in the vicinity of the optical axis of the imaging device, in a case where the parallaxes calculated for a plurality of other regions arranged in a row toward a left which exist on a left side of the region or for a plurality of other regions arranged in a row toward a right which exist on a right side of the region gradually increase in moving away from the region (see paragraph [0038]), on the other hand, Song teaches the computation device determines that the tunnel exit exists in the regions (see paragraphs [0090] and [0094]),
Regarding Claim 3, Song in view of Suzuki teach the device as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein, when there is a region for which the parallax of the subject image has been calculated in the vicinity of the optical axis of the imaging device, in a case where there is a region for which the parallax of the subject image has not been calculated on the left and right of the region (see paragraph [0038]), on the other hand, Song teaches the computation device determines that the tunnel exit exists in the regions (see paragraphs [0090] and [0094]),
Regarding Claim 4, Song in view of Suzuki teach the device as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Song further teaches wherein the computation device controls exposure of the imaging device while the vehicle travels to the tunnel exit, on the basis of the distance from the vehicle to the tunnel exit and speed of the vehicle (see paragraphs [0090] and [0094]: Note, The vehicle control system may determine at least one movement depiction based on an output value of the sensor. At least one movement description may include any indicator of the vehicle's movement. For example, at least one movement depiction may include an acceleration of the vehicle, a speed of the vehicle, longitudinal and transversal positions of the vehicle at a specific time, a three-dimensional position of the vehicle, and a determined trajectory of the vehicle).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song Pub. No.: US 2023/0150534 (Hereinafter “Song”) in view of SUZUKI et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0265097 (Hereinafter “Suzuki”), further in view of HONDA, Pub. No.: US 2021/0316734 (Hereinafter “Honda”).
Regarding Claim 5, Song in view of Suzuki teach the device as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Song teaches tunnel exit (see paragraphs [0090] and [0094]),
Song in view of Suzuki fail to teach:
wherein the computation device: detects, from the image, a preceding vehicle traveling in front of the vehicle, and controls exposure of the imaging device while the preceding vehicle travels, on the basis of the positional relationship between the preceding vehicle.
In analogous art, Honda teaches:
wherein the computation device: detects, from the image, a preceding vehicle traveling in front of the vehicle, and controls exposure of the imaging device while the preceding vehicle travels, on the basis of the positional relationship between the preceding vehicle (see paragraphs [0007] and [0038]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Song in view of Suzuki with the teaching as taught by Honda in order to provide a vehicle travel assistance apparatus that recognizes the presence of the preceding vehicle with high accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights