DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
If the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) is properly invoked, a disqualified U.S. patent document is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as of its effectively filed date (for both anticipation and obviousness rejections), but it may still be used as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as of its publication or issue date. In addition, the examiner may make a subsequent, new double patenting rejection based upon the disqualified reference. See MPEP 717.02 and 2154.02.
4. Claims 1-2, and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hack et al. (PCT/EP2021/050929, effective filed date 01-2021, US Publication 2023/0339494 is used as English Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hack discloses a control apparatus (17) for a rider support system (10) for supporting driving of a straddle-type vehicle (1) by a rider (2) (Hack, fig’s 1-4, para’s 0044-0048, a rider-operated motorcycle 100 having a device 102 for acquiring images of an environment 106 of the motorcycle 100, reading in environment information 108 based on the acquired images, and evaluating it in an evaluation device 110. In the process, objects 112 in environment 106 are detected using algorithms of machine vision. Usable free spaces 114 between objects 112 are identified and imaged in free space information 116. A prediction device 118 of device 102 predicts from a change in free spaces 114 during a past time period, that is, from at least two items of free space information 116 produced at a time offset from one another, a likely future change 120 in free spaces 114 in a future time period. Prediction device 118 predicts a probable future trajectory 122 of motorcycle 100 in the future time period using a current trajectory 124 of motorcycle 100 that was detected during the past time period. In an evaluation device 126 of device 102, change 120 and future trajectory 122 are evaluated for conflicts 128. Evaluation device 126 indicates conflict 128 as a conflict case 130. In conflict case 130, at least one conflict-free alternative trajectory 134 is ascertained for motorcycle 100 in an ascertainment device 132 of device 102 with the aid of the free space information 116. Alternative trajectory 134 is imaged in trajectory information 136 and communicated via a communications system 138 of device 102 or of motorcycle 100 to a rider 140 of motorcycle 100), the control apparatus (17) configured to:
execute a rider support operation for supporting the driving by the rider (2) (Hack, para’s 0027-0028, the alternative trajectory with the aid of acoustic signals can be provided to the rider “a rider support operation”. Acoustic signals may be supplied via sound generators on the motorcycle, loudspeakers in the helmet, or can be warnings and/or instructions of a dangerous situation. A warning may also prompt the driver to act according to the alternative trajectory),
execute a first support operation which is the rider support operation for supporting the driving by the rider (2) by display on a display unit (21, 31) (Hack, para’s 0028-0029, the alternative trajectory can be superimposed onto the field of view of the rider. Optical signals may be provided via warning lights and/or signal lamps. The warning lights and/or signal lamps may be part of a cockpit of the motorcycle. For example, directional indicators of the cockpit can be used to indicate an evasion direction. The warning lamps and/or signal lamps may also be disposed in the cockpit in addition. The optical signals are also able to be graphically supplied via a display “first support operation”. The display can be part of the cockpit, disposed on the helmet or be part of a separate device. For instance, the display may be used to display navigation information in a normal case).
Regarding claim 2, Hack discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control apparatus (17) causes, in the first support operation, the display unit (31) to display an augmented reality object (52) within a field of view (51) of the rider (2) based on surrounding environment information on the straddle-type vehicle (1) (Hack, para’s 0028-0029, the alternative trajectory is able be communicated to the rider in an optical manner. In the process, the alternative trajectory can be superimposed onto the field of view of the rider. Optical signals, for example, may be provided via warning lights and/or signal lamps. The optical signals are also able to be graphically supplied via a display. The display can be part of the cockpit. The display may also be disposed on the helmet or be part of a separate device. For instance, the display may be used to display navigation information in a normal case; para. 0085, based on the predicted trajectories and free spaces fused in the Cloud on the basis of the fused information, it is then possible to transmit warnings to the motorcyclists and/or vehicle drivers that use it. Depending on the used display technology, the display may be realized by warning lamps up to and including the display of the free space on a display, and/or by smart glasses (a transparent, holographic display in the visor of the helmet) using danger regions marked in color and/or trajectories and/or augmented reality (superimposed symbols and/or highlighting and/or markings, etc.).
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as discussed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 3-4, and 6 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Horn et al. (US Publication 2021/0197816).
Regarding claim 3, Hack discloses the control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control apparatus (17) causes, in the first support operation, the display unit (31) to display an augmented reality object (52) within a field of view (51) of the rider (2) based on surrounding environment information on the straddle-type vehicle (1) (Hack, para. 0085, based on the predicted trajectories and free spaces fused in the Cloud on the basis of the fused information, it is then possible to transmit warnings to the motorcyclists and/or vehicle drivers that use it. Depending on the used display technology, the display may be realized by warning lamps up to and including the display of the free space on a display, and/or by smart glasses (a transparent, holographic display in the visor of the helmet) using danger regions marked in color and/or trajectories and/or augmented reality (superimposed symbols and/or highlighting and/or markings, etc.)
Hack does not explicitly disclose but Horn discloses wherein the surrounding environment information is positional relationship information on the straddle-type vehicle (1) and a target (Horn, para. 0008, the cruise control may be operated automatically or with input from various sensors on the motorcycle. The sensors may operate to determine positions of the motorcycle relative to other vehicles, such as other motorcycles and/or other non-motorcycle vehicles. The cruise control may be operated substantially without further rider input to maintain a selected or predetermined distance between the motorcycle or other objects),
the control apparatus (17) executes, based on the positional relationship information, a second support operation which is the rider support operation different from the first support operation, and the augmented reality object (52) is an object about set information in the second support operation (Horn, para. 0008, the cruise control may be operated automatically or with input from various sensors on the motorcycle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Horn’s features into Hack’s invention for enhancing driver support system with other driver support operations.
Regarding claim 4, Hack-Horn discloses the control apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the second support operation includes an operation of adjusting a positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (1) and other vehicle (4) (Horn, para. 0008, the cruise control may be operated automatically or with input from various sensors on the motorcycle. The sensors may operate to determine positions of the motorcycle relative to other vehicles, such as other motorcycles and/or other non-motorcycle vehicles. The cruise control may be operated substantially without further rider input to maintain a selected or predetermined distance between the motorcycle or other objects “adjusting positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle and other vehicle”).
The motivation to combine the references and obviousness arguments are the same as claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Hack-Horn discloses the control apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the second support operation includes an operation about group ride in which a group including a plurality of straddle-type vehicles travels in a plurality of vehicle lines (Hack, fig. 4, para. 0061 and 0080, detecting a motorcycle approaching on the side from behind; determining potential collision with group of vehicles including other motorcycles travelling in different vehicle lanes; Horn, para. 0008, the cruise control may be operated automatically or with input from various sensors on the motorcycle. The sensors may operate to determine positions of the motorcycle relative to other vehicles, such as other motorcycles and/or other non-motorcycle vehicles. The cruise control may be operated substantially without further rider input to maintain a selected or predetermined distance between the motorcycle or other objects),
The motivation to combine the references and obviousness arguments are the same as claim 3.
7. Claim 5 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack-Horn, as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Knauer et al. (English Translation of Japanese Publication JP2021037928 03-2021).
Regarding claim 5, Hack-Horn discloses the control apparatus according to claim 3.
Hack-Horn does not explicitly disclose but Knauer discloses wherein the second support operation includes an operation of issuing a warning based on a probability of collision (Knauer, para’s 0037, 0044-0045, Collision Possibility Determination Step and warning device; para. 0064, the body position information acquisition unit 52 acquires position information based on the output of the wearable position detection device 90. This configuration makes it possible to determine the likelihood of a collision using highly accurate positional information, thereby improving safety during cornering maneuvers; para. 0006, the rider support system comprises an ambient environment detection device mounted on the saddle-type vehicle for detecting the surrounding environment of the saddle-type vehicle, and a control device that controls the operation of the rider support system, wherein the control device comprises an object identification unit that identifies an object approaching the side of the saddle-type vehicle based on the output of the ambient environment detection device, a body position information acquisition unit that acquires position information of at least a part of the rider's body in the saddle-type vehicle while it is turning, a collision possibility determination unit that determines the possibility of the rider colliding with the object identified by the object identification unit based on the position information acquired by the body position information acquisition unit, and a safety operation execution unit that causes the rider support system to execute a safety operation when the collision possibility determination unit determines that the collision possibility is high).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Knauer’s features into Hack-Horn’s invention for improving driver safety by providing warning of potential collision.
8. Claims 7-13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Maekawa (WIPO Publication WO 2021111734 06-2021).
Regarding claim 7, Hack discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the surrounding environment information is surrounding environment information on the rear of the straddle-type vehicle (1) (Hack, par. 0080, camera directed to the rear to provide surrounding environment information).
Hack does not explicitly disclose but Maekawa discloses wherein the control apparatus changes, in the first support operation, a degree of limitation on displaying a video showing a rear of the straddle-type vehicle on the display unit based on surrounding environment information on the straddle-type vehicle (Maekawa, para. 0078, when there is another vehicle in the rear blind spot position, if the driver gives a signal to make a right or left turn, a U-turn or a lane change, the motorcycle 1 has an urgency or importance on the second display 42. A high-degree indicator is displayed, and the pictogram of FIG. 3 (e) is displayed on the first display unit 41. As a result, the motorcycle 1 can make the driver recognize that another vehicle is present at the rear blind spot position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Maekawa’s features into Hack’s invention for enhancing driver support system.
Regarding claim 8, Hack-Maekawa discloses the control apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the surrounding environment information is surrounding environment information on the rear of the straddle-type vehicle (1) (Hack, par. 0080, camera directed to the rear to provide surrounding environment information; Maekawa, para. 0078, blind spot is in the rear of motorcycle 1).
The motivation to combine the references and obviousness arguments are the same as claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Hack-Maekawa discloses the control apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the control apparatus changes, in the first support operation, the degree of limitation based on behavior information on the straddle-type vehicle (1) (Maekawa, para. 0078, when there is another vehicle in the rear blind spot position, if the driver gives a signal to make a right or left turn, a U-turn or a lane change, which indicates turning behavior, the motorcycle 1 has an urgency or importance on the second display 42. A high-degree indicator is displayed, and the pictogram of FIG. 3 (e) is displayed on the first display unit 41. As a result, the motorcycle 1 can make the driver recognize that another vehicle is present at the rear blind spot position).
The motivation to combine the references and obviousness arguments are the same as claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Hack discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1.
Hack does not explicitly disclose but Maekawa discloses wherein the control apparatus (17) changes, in the first support operation, an indication displayed on the display unit (21, 31) according to whether the straddle-type vehicle (1) is in a middle of cornering (Maekawa, para. 0078, when there is another vehicle in the rear blind spot position, if the driver gives a signal to make a right or left turn, a U-turn or a lane change, which indicates motorcycle 1 is turning/cornering, the motorcycle 1 has an urgency or importance on the second display 42. A high-degree indicator is displayed, and the pictogram of FIG. 3 (e) is displayed on the first display unit 41. As a result, the motorcycle 1 can make the driver recognize that another vehicle is present at the rear blind spot position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Maekawa’s features into Hack’s invention for enhancing driver support system.
Regarding claim 11, Hack-Maekawa discloses the control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein in a case where the straddle-type vehicle (1) is in the middle of cornering, the control apparatus (17) limits, in the first support operation, the display on the display unit (21, 31) as compared to a case where the straddle-type vehicle (1) is not in the middle of cornering (Maekawa, para. 0048, an indicator represents the presence or absence of information by turning a light on or off, or the amount of information. The indicator may represent the importance or urgency of the information, for example, by the brightness, color, or display area of the light. The indicator can be given multiple variations by changing, for example, the color, the location of illumination, the number of flashes, and the flashing interval; para. 0078, when there is another vehicle in the rear blind spot position, if the driver gives a signal to make a right or left turn, a U-turn or a lane change, the motorcycle 1 has an urgency or importance on the second display 42. A high-degree indicator is displayed, and the pictogram of FIG. 3 (e) is displayed on the first display unit 41. As a result, the motorcycle 1 can make the driver recognize that another vehicle is present at the rear blind spot position).
The motivation to combine the references and obviousness arguments are the same as claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Hack-Maekawa discloses the control apparatus according to claim 10, wherein in a case where the straddle-type vehicle (1) is in the middle of cornering, the control apparatus (17) changes, in the first support operation, a position of the indication displayed on the display unit (21, 31) as compared to a case where the straddle-type vehicle (1) is not in the middle of cornering (Maekawa, para. 0013, the lean vehicle can provide a wide variety of display options for displaying vehicle information in various variations by combining the first display and the second display; the different options for displaying vehicle information in various variations by combining the first display and the second display implies changes in position of content to be displayed; para. 0078, when there is another vehicle in the rear blind spot position, if the driver gives a signal to make a right or left turn, a U-turn or a lane change, the motorcycle 1 has an urgency or importance on the second display 42. A high-degree indicator is displayed, and the pictogram of FIG. 3 (e) is displayed on the first display unit 41. As a result, the motorcycle 1 can make the driver recognize that another vehicle is present at the rear blind spot position; para. 0048, an indicator represents the presence or absence of information by turning a light on or off, or the amount of information. The indicator may represent the importance or urgency of the information, for example, by the brightness, color, or display area of the light. The indicator can be given multiple variations by changing, for example, the color, the location of illumination, the number of flashes, and the flashing interval).
The motivation to combine the references and obviousness arguments are the same as claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Hack-Maekawa discloses the control apparatus according to claim 12, wherein in a case where the straddle-type vehicle (1) is in the middle of cornering, the control apparatus (17) positions, in the first support operation, the indication displayed on the display unit (21, 31) to a side in a turning direction with reference to a center position of the straddle-type vehicle (1) in a vehicle width direction (Maekawa, para. 0017, the lean vehicle comprises a left rearview mirror positioned to the left of the center in the left-right direction of the lean vehicle for the driver to see behind the lean vehicle in the front-rear direction; a right rearview mirror positioned to the right of the center in the left-right direction of the lean vehicle for the driver to see behind the lean vehicle in the front-rear direction; para. 0047, if the second indicator indicates the presence of an object approaching a leaning vehicle, and the first indicator indicates that the object is a vehicle, then the first indicator can be said to semantically complement the second indicator. Furthermore, for example, if the second display is positioned closer to the center of the rider's field of view than the first display, and the second display is brighter than the first display, then the second display can be said to visually complement the first display; para. 0067, the second display unit 42 is positioned on the upper U portion of the edge portion 301a of the left rearview mirror 30a in the vertical UD direction and on the right portion in the left-right LR direction (the portion closer to the center in the left-right LR direction of the motorcycle 1); Therefore, when the motorcycle lean to one direction, to the left or to the right in the left-right direction, the first display and the second display located on the particular mirror on the direction that the motorcycle is turning to, i.e., left-side mirror or right-sided mirror, will be closer to the driver with respect to the center position of the motorcycle. As a result, the driver of the motorcycle will obviously be able to view content displayed on the first display and the second display located on the particular mirror).
The motivation to combine the references and obviousness arguments are the same as claim 1.
9. Claim 14 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ting (US Publication 2021/0101530).
Regarding claim 14, Hack discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1.
Hack does not explicitly disclose but Ting discloses wherein the display unit (21) is provided to an item worn by a part of the rider (2) other than a head, or projects an image on the item or a skin of the rider (2) (Ting, para’s 0063-0064, the housing 11 is attached to the wrist of the driver with a first attachment 71, wherein the display unit 20 is selectively rotated and pivotally moved to adjust the position of the display unit 20 so as to selectively adjust a viewing angle of the display unit 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ting’s features into Hack’s invention for improving driver safety by placing a display device on the arm of the driver.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. These include:
Yamada, US Publication 2026/0001611
Nelson, US Publication 2018/0275650.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOI H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5645. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM PST FIRST FRIDAY OF BIWEEK OFF.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/LOI H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights