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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 19/123,197 filed on 04/22/2025.
Claims 16-23 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Jeffrey Chalhoub.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 22nd, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“1”,
“2”,
“3”,
“4”,
“5”,
“6”,
“7”,
“15”,
“2120”,
“2200”,
“2210”,
“2220”,
“2230”,
“2240”,
“3120”,
“3200”,
“3210”,
“3220”,
“3230”,
“3240”,
“3011B”,
“3011C”,
“21”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“2200A”,
“2210A”,
“2220A”,
“2230A”,
“2240A”,
“2200B”,
“2210B”,
“2220B”,
“2230B”,
“2240B”,
“2200C”,
“2210C”,
“2220C”,
“2230C”,
“2240C”,
“2200N”,
“2210N”,
“2220N”,
“2230N”,
“2240N”,
“3200A”,
“3210A”,
“3220A”,
“3230A”,
“3240A”,
“3200B”,
“3210B”,
“3220B”,
“3230B”,
“3240B”,
“3200C”,
“3210C”,
“3220C”,
“3230C”,
“3240C”,
“3200N”,
“3210N”,
“3220N”,
“3230N”,
“3240N”,
“S4010”,
“S4012”,
“S5010”,
“S5012”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0367018 A1) in view of Kato (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0221125 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Ishioka teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: acquire a plurality of pieces of information related to a vehicle from a sensor that detects a situation around the vehicle including an obstacle at a second cycle shorter than a first cycle at which surroundings of the vehicle are imaged, as a cycle for detecting the situation around the vehicle;, (See (Ishioka: Summary of the Invention – 6th-13th paragraphs and Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 26th-30th, 63rd-72nd, and 78th-86th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
and calculate a control variable for controlling behavior of the vehicle based on the plurality of pieces of acquired information and the set traveling strategy; and control the behavior of the vehicle based on the calculated control variable., (See (Ishioka: Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 53rd-59th, 63rd-76th, and 89th-103rd paragraphs))
Ishioka does not teach but Kato teaches:
set a traveling strategy for the vehicle to avoid the obstacle based on the plurality of pieces of acquired information,, (See (Kato: Summary – 6th-15th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 24th-33rd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka with these above aforementioned teachings from Kato in order to create a safe information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Kato’s driving assistance device and method in order to set a traveling strategy for a vehicle to avoid an obstacle based on pieces of acquired information. Combining Ishioka and Kato would thus provide “a driving assistance device and method that decreases the possibility of an own vehicle colliding with a moving body such as another vehicle nearby when the own vehicle takes action to avoid colliding with an object.” (Kato: Summary – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5:
Ishioka in view of Kato, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Ishioka further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor calculates the control variable, (See (Ishioka: Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 53rd-59th, 63rd-76th, and 89th-103rd paragraphs))
Ishioka does not teach but Kato teaches:
[…] such that the vehicle travels according to the set traveling pattern., (See (Kato: Summary – 6th-15th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 24th-33rd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka with these above aforementioned teachings from Kato in order to create a safe information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Kato’s driving assistance device and method in order to set a traveling strategy for a vehicle to avoid an obstacle based on pieces of acquired information. Combining Ishioka and Kato would thus provide “a driving assistance device and method that decreases the possibility of an own vehicle colliding with a moving body such as another vehicle nearby when the own vehicle takes action to avoid colliding with an object.” (Kato: Summary – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6:
Ishioka in view of Kato, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. Ishioka further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the control variable is a speed of the vehicle and a timing of changing the speed of the vehicle., (See (Ishioka: Summary of the Invention – 6th-13th paragraphs and Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 52nd-61st, 67th-70th, 79th-86th, and 94th-102nd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 7:
Ishioka in view of Kato, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ishioka further teaches:
[…] in a case where it is determined that the vehicle performs emergency behavior based on the control variable., (See (Ishioka: Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 42nd, 58th-67th, and 98th-100th paragraphs))
Ishioka does not teach but Kato teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor transmits the control variable to another vehicle present around the vehicle, (See (Kato: Detailed Description of Embodiments – 25th-33rd, 38th-48th, 55th-65th, and 72nd-77th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka with these above aforementioned teachings from Kato in order to create a safe information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Kato’s driving assistance device and method in order to set a traveling strategy for a vehicle to avoid an obstacle based on pieces of acquired information. Combining Ishioka and Kato would thus provide “a driving assistance device and method that decreases the possibility of an own vehicle colliding with a moving body such as another vehicle nearby when the own vehicle takes action to avoid colliding with an object.” (Kato: Summary – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8:
Ishioka in view of Kato, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ishioka further teaches:
[…] in a case where it is determined that the vehicle performs the emergency behavior based on the control variable., (See (Ishioka: Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 42nd, 58th-67th, and 98th-100th paragraphs))
Ishioka does not teach but Kato teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor transmits a signal indicating that the vehicle performs emergency behavior to another vehicle present around the vehicle, (See (Kato: Detailed Description of Embodiments – 25th-33rd, 38th-48th, 55th-65th, and 72nd-77th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka with these above aforementioned teachings from Kato in order to create a safe information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Kato’s driving assistance device and method in order to set a traveling strategy for a vehicle to avoid an obstacle based on pieces of acquired information. Combining Ishioka and Kato would thus provide “a driving assistance device and method that decreases the possibility of an own vehicle colliding with a moving body such as another vehicle nearby when the own vehicle takes action to avoid colliding with an object.” (Kato: Summary – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 10:
Ishioka teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: acquire a plurality of pieces of information related to a vehicle from a sensor that detects a situation around the vehicle including an obstacle at a second cycle shorter than a first cycle at which surroundings of the vehicle are imaged, as a cycle for detecting the situation around the vehicle;, (See (Ishioka: Summary of the Invention – 6th-13th paragraphs and Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 26th-30th, 63rd-72nd, and 78th-86th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
and calculate a control variable for controlling behavior of the vehicle based on the plurality of pieces of acquired information and the set traveling strategy; control the behavior of the vehicle based on the calculated control variable;, (See (Ishioka: Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 53rd-59th, 63rd-76th, and 89th-103rd paragraphs))
Ishioka does not teach but Kato teaches:
set a traveling strategy for the vehicle to avoid the obstacle based on the plurality of pieces of acquired information,, (See (Kato: Summary – 6th-15th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 24th-33rd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
receive a plurality of pieces of information related to another vehicle including a situation around the another vehicle and acquired by a sensor of the another vehicle in a case where the at least one processor determines that the vehicle is to collide with the obstacle and the obstacle is the another vehicle; and calculate a control variable for controlling behavior of the another vehicle based on at least the plurality of pieces of information related to the another vehicle and the plurality of pieces of information related to the vehicle, and transmit the calculated control variable for controlling the behavior of the another vehicle to the another vehicle., (See (Kato: Detailed Description of Embodiments – 38th-51st, 53rd-67th, and 69th-83rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka with these above aforementioned teachings from Kato in order to create a safe information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Kato’s driving assistance device and method in order to set a traveling strategy for a vehicle to avoid an obstacle based on pieces of acquired information. Combining Ishioka and Kato would thus provide “a driving assistance device and method that decreases the possibility of an own vehicle colliding with a moving body such as another vehicle nearby when the own vehicle takes action to avoid colliding with an object.” (Kato: Summary – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 11:
Ishioka in view of Kato, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Ishioka further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the control variable for controlling the behavior of the another vehicle is calculated, (See (Ishioka: Summary of the Invention – 6th-13th paragraphs and Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 26th-30th, 53rd-59th, 63rd-76th, 78th-86th, and 89th-103rd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
Ishioka does not teach but Kato teaches:
[…] based on at least the plurality of pieces of information related to the another vehicle, the plurality of pieces of information related to the vehicle, and the control variable for controlling the behavior of the vehicle., (See (Kato: Summary – 6th-15th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 24th-33rd, 38th-51st, 53rd-67th, and 69th-83rd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka with these above aforementioned teachings from Kato in order to create a safe information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Kato’s driving assistance device and method in order to set a traveling strategy for a vehicle to avoid an obstacle based on pieces of acquired information. Combining Ishioka and Kato would thus provide “a driving assistance device and method that decreases the possibility of an own vehicle colliding with a moving body such as another vehicle nearby when the own vehicle takes action to avoid colliding with an object.” (Kato: Summary – 5th paragraph)
Claims 2, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0367018 A1) in view of Kato (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0221125 A1) in further view of Sato (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0325284 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Ishioka in view of Kato, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ishioka further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor calculates the control variable, (See (Ishioka: Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 53rd-59th, 63rd-76th, and 89th-103rd paragraphs))
Ishioka in view of Kato does not teach but Sato teaches:
[…] by multivariate analysis by an integration method using deep learning., (See (Sato: Summary of the Invention – 11th paragraph and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 48th-49th and 73rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka in view of Kato with these above aforementioned teachings from Sato in order to create a smart information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Sato’s traffic congestion detection apparatus and vehicle control apparatus in order to calculate a control variable of a vehicle by multivariate analysis by an integration method using deep learning. Combining Ishioka and Sato would thus provide “a traffic congestion detection apparatus and a vehicle control apparatus which make it possible to determine a traveling state of a vehicle in traffic congestion with high accuracy, and to control traveling of the vehicle according to the traveling state of the vehicle in the traffic congestion.” (Sato: Summary of the Invention – 6th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 9:
Ishioka in view of Kato, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ishioka further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor calculates the control variable, (See (Ishioka: Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 53rd-59th, 63rd-76th, and 89th-103rd paragraphs))
Ishioka in view of Kato does not teach but Sato teaches:
[…] by multivariate analysis by an integration method using deep learning., (See (Sato: Summary of the Invention – 11th paragraph and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 48th-49th and 73rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka in view of Kato with these above aforementioned teachings from Sato in order to create a smart information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Sato’s traffic congestion detection apparatus and vehicle control apparatus in order to calculate a control variable of a vehicle by multivariate analysis by an integration method using deep learning. Combining Ishioka and Sato would thus provide “a traffic congestion detection apparatus and a vehicle control apparatus which make it possible to determine a traveling state of a vehicle in traffic congestion with high accuracy, and to control traveling of the vehicle according to the traveling state of the vehicle in the traffic congestion.” (Sato: Summary of the Invention – 6th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 12:
Ishioka in view of Kato, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Ishioka further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the at least one processor calculates the control variable, (See (Ishioka: Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 53rd-59th, 63rd-76th, and 89th-103rd paragraphs))
Ishioka in view of Kato does not teach but Sato teaches:
[…] by multivariate analysis by an integration method using deep learning., (See (Sato: Summary of the Invention – 11th paragraph and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 48th-49th and 73rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka in view of Kato with these above aforementioned teachings from Sato in order to create a smart information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Sato’s traffic congestion detection apparatus and vehicle control apparatus in order to calculate a control variable of a vehicle by multivariate analysis by an integration method using deep learning. Combining Ishioka and Sato would thus provide “a traffic congestion detection apparatus and a vehicle control apparatus which make it possible to determine a traveling state of a vehicle in traffic congestion with high accuracy, and to control traveling of the vehicle according to the traveling state of the vehicle in the traffic congestion.” (Sato: Summary of the Invention – 6th paragraph)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0367018 A1) in view of Kato (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0221125 A1) in further view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0313446 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Ishioka in view of Kato, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ishioka further teaches:
[…] calculates the control variable by using the information acquired in units of 1/1 billion seconds, and performs the control of the behavior of the vehicle by using the control variable in units of 1/1 billion seconds., (See (Ishioka: Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 53rd-59th, 63rd-76th, and 89th-103rd paragraphs))
Ishioka in view of Kato does not teach but Kim teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor acquires the plurality of pieces of information in units of 1/1 billion seconds,, (See (Kim: Detailed Description – 84th, 153rd, 173rd, and 203rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka in view of Kato with these above aforementioned teachings from Kim in order to create an efficient information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Kim’s method, system, and device for network communications within a vehicle in order to acquire pieces of information of a vehicle, calculate a control variable, and perform a control of the vehicle by using the control variable in units of nanoseconds. Combining Ishioka and Kim would thus provide “vehicle communication systems, in particular, toward contention resolution in vehicle communication systems.” (Kim: Field – 2nd paragraph)
Claims 4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0367018 A1) in view of Kato (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0221125 A1) in further view of Sathyanarayana (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0165531 A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Ishioka in view of Kato, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ishioka does not teach but Kato teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor applies, as the traveling strategy, a traveling pattern related to a traveling path to reach a destination while avoiding the obstacle,, (See (Kato: Summary – 6th-15th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 24th-33rd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka with these above aforementioned teachings from Kato in order to create a safe information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Kato’s driving assistance device and method in order to set a traveling strategy for a vehicle to avoid an obstacle based on pieces of acquired information. Combining Ishioka and Kato would thus provide “a driving assistance device and method that decreases the possibility of an own vehicle colliding with a moving body such as another vehicle nearby when the own vehicle takes action to avoid colliding with an object.” (Kato: Summary – 5th paragraph)
Ishioka in view of Kato does not teach but Sathyanarayana teaches:
[…] and sets a traveling pattern in which a size of a space between the vehicle and the obstacle exceeds a predetermined value among a plurality of different traveling patterns., (See (Sathyanarayana: Description of the Preferred Embodiments – 29th-33rd, 49th-63rd, 65th-72nd, 76th-80th, 89th, and 94th-101st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka in view of Kato with these above aforementioned teachings from Sathyanarayana in order to create an effective information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Sathyanarayana’s systems and methods for near-crash determination in order to set a traveling pattern for a vehicle in which a size of a space between the vehicle and an obstacle exceeds a predetermined value and register different traveling patterns that are past traveling patterns of the vehicle to be controlled for avoiding the obstacle. Combining Ishioka and Sathyanarayana would thus provide “a new and useful system and method for near-crash determination.” (Sathyanarayana: Background – 4th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 13:
Ishioka teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:, (See (Ishioka: Summary of the Invention – 6th-13th paragraphs and Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 26th-30th, 63rd-72nd, and 78th-86th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
and calculate a control variable for controlling behavior of the vehicle such that the vehicle travels according to the traveling pattern based on the plurality of pieces of acquired information and the set traveling pattern; and control the behavior of the vehicle based on the calculated control variable., (See (Ishioka: Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 53rd-59th, 63rd-76th, and 89th-103rd paragraphs))
Ishioka does not teach but Kato teaches:
acquire a plurality of pieces of information related to the vehicle from a sensor that detects a situation around the vehicle including the obstacle; set a traveling pattern for the vehicle to avoid the obstacle from among the plurality of registered traveling patterns by using the plurality of pieces of acquired information,, (See (Kato: Summary – 6th-15th paragraphs and Detailed Description of Embodiments – 24th-33rd paragraphs, FIG. 1))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka with these above aforementioned teachings from Kato in order to create a safe information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Kato’s driving assistance device and method in order to set a traveling strategy for a vehicle to avoid an obstacle based on pieces of acquired information. Combining Ishioka and Kato would thus provide “a driving assistance device and method that decreases the possibility of an own vehicle colliding with a moving body such as another vehicle nearby when the own vehicle takes action to avoid colliding with an object.” (Kato: Summary – 5th paragraph)
Ishioka in view of Kato does not teach but Sathyanarayana teaches:
register a plurality of different traveling patterns that are past traveling patterns of a vehicle for avoiding an obstacle;, (See (Sathyanarayana: Description of the Preferred Embodiments – 25th-27th, 37th, 41st-47th, 55th-57th, and 76th-83rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka in view of Kato with these above aforementioned teachings from Sathyanarayana in order to create an effective information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Sathyanarayana’s systems and methods for near-crash determination in order to set a traveling pattern for a vehicle in which a size of a space between the vehicle and an obstacle exceeds a predetermined value and register different traveling patterns that are past traveling patterns of the vehicle to be controlled for avoiding the obstacle. Combining Ishioka and Sathyanarayana would thus provide “a new and useful system and method for near-crash determination.” (Sathyanarayana: Background – 4th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 14:
Ishioka in view of Kato in further view of Sathyanarayana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Ishioka does not teach but Sathyanarayana teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the at least one processor registers the traveling pattern for each vehicle to be controlled or for each vehicle type of the vehicle., (See (Sathyanarayana: Description of the Preferred Embodiments – 25th-27th, 37th-39th, 41st-47th, 55th-57th, and 76th-91st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishioka with these above aforementioned teachings from Sathyanarayana in order to create an effective information processing apparatus and program. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ishioka’s vehicle control system, method, and program with Sathyanarayana’s systems and methods for near-crash determination in order to set a traveling pattern for a vehicle in which a size of a space between the vehicle and an obstacle exceeds a predetermined value and register different traveling patterns that are past traveling patterns of the vehicle to be controlled for avoiding the obstacle. Combining Ishioka and Sathyanarayana would thus provide “a new and useful system and method for near-crash determination.” (Sathyanarayana: Background – 4th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 15:
Ishioka in view of Kato in further view of Sathyanarayana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Ishioka further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the obstacle is another vehicle other than the vehicle., (See (Ishioka: Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention – 63rd paragraph))
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
