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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda et al. (JP2008003762A).
Regarding claim 1, Ueda discloses a pedestrian collision determination system comprising: an image capturing apparatus mounted on a vehicle and configured to capture an image of surroundings of the vehicle (2nd paragraph from the last, page 5 of the translated text); a first detection unit for detecting a traveling direction of the vehicle (1st par., page 5); a second detection unit for detecting a ground position of a pedestrian whose image has been captured by the image capturing apparatus (image processing 12b); a third detection unit for detecting an orientation of the pedestrian whose image has been captured by the image capturing apparatus (2nd paragraph from the last, page 5); a possible collision area setting unit for setting a possible collision area having a shape and size according to an environment in which the image of the pedestrian has been captured by the image capturing apparatus (paragraph bridging page 5 and page 6); and a determination unit for determining a possibility of collision between the vehicle and the captured pedestrian based on the traveling direction of the vehicle detected by the first detection unit, the ground position of the captured pedestrian detected by the second detection unit, the orientation of the captured pedestrian detected by the third detection unit, and the possible collision area set by the possible collision area setting unit (p. 7, 4th par).
Regarding claim 2, Ueda discloses the determination unit determines that the possibility of collision is high in a case where the traveling direction of the vehicle from a position of the vehicle intersects the orientation of the pedestrian from the ground position of the pedestrian and the ground position of the pedestrian is in the possible collision area (note 5th paragraph in page 7).
Regarding claim 3, Ueda discloses the possible collision area setting unit sets the possible collision area to have a shape and size increased forward when viewed from the vehicle as a speed of the vehicle is faster and decreased forward when viewed from the vehicle as the speed of the vehicle is slower (4th paragraph, p. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Ueda discloses the possible collision area setting unit sets the possible collision area to have a shape and size large in a roadside direction and forward when viewed from the vehicle in a case where the vehicle is in front of a crosswalk, an intersection, a railroad crossing, or a traffic light (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Ueda discloses in a case where there is a stop near the vehicle, the possible collision area setting unit sets the possible collision area to have a shape and size including an area extending from the vehicle to the stop (5th paragraph, p. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Ueda discloses the possible collision area setting unit sets the possible collision area to have a shape and size large on a right side in a case where the vehicle turns right and large on a left side in a case where the vehicle turns left. That is, the contact risk areas ABC as shown in Fig. 3 inherently shift to the right when the vehicle makes a right turn, which results a large shape and size on the right, and shift to the left when the vehicle makes a left turn, which results a larger shape and size on the left.
Regarding claim 8, Ueda discloses the third detection unit detects the orientation of the pedestrian based on a state of a skeleton of the pedestrian (see Fig. 4a).
Regarding claims 9-14, and 16-20, see similar rejections as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent 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.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (JP2008003762A).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Ueda does not disclose that the possible collision area setting unit sets the possible collision area to have a shape and size according to a gradient of a road on which the vehicle travels. However, in page 13, Ueda states that in the embodiments described above, when changing the scope of the essential region of interest, so that change only size in the similar shape to the shape of the main region of interest, but changing the shape of the main region of interest may be. In other words, both the size and shape can be changed due to different environments, such as contour and gradient of the roads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda so that to set the possible collision area to have a shape and size according to a gradient of a road on which the vehicle travels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights