DETAILED ACTION
Amendment of the claims filed on 09/25/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 had been canceled.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
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.
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: a recognizer configured to recognize surrounding conditions of a vehicle; an estimator configured to estimate a traveling direction and a speed of a mobile object on the basis of a position and an attribute of the mobile object present in a vicinity of the vehicle, recognized by the recognizer; and a notifier configured to perform a notification regarding the mobile object on the basis of a result of recognition by the recognizer and a result of estimation by the estimator …. In claim 9.
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 § 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 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 of this title, 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 9-11, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (Pub No.: US 2009/0182505 A1) in view of Kenichi (JP 2015014948 A – Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 9, Ikeda discloses traveling control device of vehicle comprising:
a recognizer (e.g., camera / object detecting portion 1a) configured to recognize surrounding conditions of a vehicle (e.g., to detect obstacle (s) in front of a vehicle 23 (par. 26 and 35 and Figure 1));
an estimator (e.g., position predicting portion 45b) configured to estimate a traveling direction and a speed of a mobile object (e.g., determining direction of the object 53 relative to the traveling direction of the vehicle 23 (par. 33 and 35 and Figures 3-4) and traveling speed of the object 53 – for instance, bicycle (par. 73) ) on the basis of a position and an attribute of the mobile object present in a vicinity of the vehicle, recognized by the recognizer (e.g., determining position of the object (par. 33) and its specified size and shape (par. 35) detected by the camera / object detecting portion 1a ); and
a notifier (e.g., a warning control portion 1h (par. 26 and 30)) configured to perform a notification regarding the mobile object (e.g., to warn the passenger of the vehicle of impossible passing situation of an obstacle / bicycle (par. 38, 42 and 43)) on the basis of a result of recognition by the recognizer and a result of estimation by the estimator (e.g., based on detected obstacle(s) (par. 26 and 35 and Figure 1) and its determined direction and traveling speed (par. 33, 35, and 73 and Figures 3-4)),
wherein, when the mobile object is traveling in a direction considered to be the same as the traveling direction of the vehicle (e.g., Figures 3 and 5C show bicycle 53 traveling in the same direction as the vehicle 23 (par. 41 and Figure 3)), the notifier performs a notification if a current position of the mobile object is within a predetermined range from the vehicle (e.g., to warn the vehicle’s passenger of impossible passing situation of an obstacle / bicycle (par. 38, 42 and 43) when the vehicle enters a contact-dangerous area (par. 40 and 41)).
However, Ikeda failed to disclose detecting / determining when the mobile object is traveling in a direction considered to be opposite to the traveling direction of the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Kenichi teaches a vehicle configured to determine a bicycle traveling in opposite direction to the vehicle 100 (par. 22, 23, 25 and Figure 7b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the vehicle traveling control device taught by Ikeda, such that the vehicle is configured to determine a bicycle traveling in opposite direction to the vehicle, in view of Kenichi, with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of preventing collision with a bicycle while the vehicle is traveling with an area (par. 1-2 and 5).
Ikeda, as modified by disclose Kenichi, performs a notification if a predicted position of the mobile object after a predetermined time is within a predetermined range from the vehicle (e.g., to warn the vehicle’s passenger of impossible passing situation of an obstacle / bicycle (par. 38, 42 and 43) when the vehicle enters a contact-dangerous area of the detected position of the object / bicycles 53 (Ikeda’s par. 40 and 41)) – for instance, when the bicycle traveling in opposite direction to the vehicle (Kenichi’s par. 22, 23, 25 and Figure 7b) ).
Regarding claim 10, Ikeda discloses traveling control device of vehicle, wherein the mobile object includes a bicycle (e.g., the obstacle is the two-wheeled vehicle, such as the bicycle (par. 51 and Figure 3)).
Regarding claim 11, Ikeda discloses traveling control device of vehicle wherein the mobile object is a mobile object that moves in or a shoulder or roadside strip in contact with the traveling lane (e.g., Figure show bicycle 53 traveling on a shoulder / roadside strip in contact with the traveling lane of the vehicle 23 (Figure 3 and related disclosure))(alternative limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Ikeda discloses traveling control device of vehicle wherein the notifier performs the notification based on the current position of the mobile object and the position of the vehicle ( e.g., to warn the vehicle passenger of impossible passing situation of an obstacle / bicycle (par. 38, 42 and 43) based on detected obstacle’s position (par. 26 and 35 and Figure 1) and vehicle position / location (par. 67 and 68)) when the mobile object is present outside the traveling lane of the vehicle and a speed of the mobile object is equal to or greater than a predetermined speed (e.g., Figures 3 and 5C-5D show the bicycle traveling on a shoulder / roadside strip (par. 41-42 and 71 and Figures 3 and 5C-5D ) with a predetermined speed (par. 73)).
Regarding claim 15, Ikeda discloses traveling control device of vehicle wherein the outside of the traveling lane of the vehicle is a lane adjacent to the traveling lane of the vehicle (e.g., Figure 3 and 5C-5D show the shoulder / roadside strip where the bicycle travels as lane adjacent to the vehicle’s traveling lane (par. 41-42, 66-68 and 71 and Figures 3 and 5C-5D)).
Regarding claim 16, Ikeda discloses traveling control method of vehicle comprising:
by a computer (e.g., control unit (par. 26) ),
recognizing surrounding conditions of a vehicle (e.g., detecting obstacle (s) in front of a vehicle 23 via camera / object detecting portion 1a (par. 26 and 35 and Figure 1));
estimating a traveling direction and a speed of a mobile object present in a vicinity of the vehicle (e.g., determining direction of the object 53 relative to the traveling direction of the vehicle 23 (par. 33 and 35 and Figures 3-4) and traveling speed of the object 53 – for instance, bicycle (par. 73) via position predicting portion 45b) on the basis of a position and an attribute of the mobile object, which are recognized (e.g., determining position of the object (par. 33) and its specified size and shape (par. 35) detected by the camera / object detecting portion 1a);
performing a notification regarding the mobile object on the basis of a result of the recognition and a result of the estimation (warning the vehicle’s passenger of impossible passing situation of an obstacle / bicycle (par. 38, 42 and 43) based on detected obstacle(s) (par. 26 and 35 and Figure 1) and its determined direction and traveling speed (par. 33, 35, and 73 and Figures 3-4));
performing, when the mobile object is traveling in a direction that is considered to be the same as the traveling direction of the vehicle (e.g., Figures 3 and 5C show bicycle 53 traveling in the same direction as the vehicle 23 (par. 41 and Figure 3)), a notification if a current position of the mobile object is within a predetermined range from the vehicle (e.g., warning the vehicle’s passenger of impossible passing situation of an obstacle / bicycle (par. 38, 42 and 43) when the vehicle enters a contact-dangerous area (par. 40 and 41)).
However, Ikeda failed to disclose detecting / determining when the mobile object is traveling in a direction considered to be opposite to the traveling direction of the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Kenichi teaches a vehicle configured to determine a bicycle traveling in opposite direction to the vehicle 100 (par. 22, 23, 25 and Figure 7b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the vehicle traveling control device taught by Ikeda, such that the vehicle is configured to determine a bicycle traveling in opposite direction to the vehicle, in view of Kenichi, with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of preventing collision with a bicycle while the vehicle is traveling with an area (par. 1-2 and 5).
Ikeda, as modified by disclose Kenichi, performing a notification if a predicted position of the mobile object after a predetermined time is within a predetermined range from the vehicle (e.g., to warn the vehicle’s passenger of impossible passing situation of an obstacle / bicycle (par. 38, 42 and 43) when the vehicle enters a contact-dangerous area of the detected position of the object / bicycles 53 (Ikeda’s par. 40 and 41)) – for instance, when the bicycle traveling in opposite direction to the vehicle (Kenichi’s par. 22, 23, 25 and Figure 7b) ).
Regarding claim 17, Ikeda discloses traveling control unit for a vehicle configured to execute a sequence of steps (S1-11) (par. 45-56 and Figures 6 and 2), which requires to be stored on a control unit’s memory to perform at least:
recognizing surrounding conditions of a vehicle (e.g., detecting obstacle (s) in front of a vehicle 23 via camera / object detecting portion 1a (par. 26 and 35 and Figure 1));
estimating a traveling direction and a speed of a mobile object (e.g., determining direction of the object 53 relative to the traveling direction of the vehicle 23 (par. 33 and 35 and Figures 3-4) and traveling speed of the object 53 – for instance, bicycle (par. 73) via position predicting portion 45b) on the basis of a position and an attribute of the mobile object present in a vicinity of the vehicle, which are recognized (e.g., determining position of the object (par. 33) and its specified size and shape (par. 35) detected by the camera / object detecting portion 1a);
performing a notification regarding the mobile object on the basis of a result of the recognition and a result of the estimation (warning the vehicle’s passenger of impossible passing situation of an obstacle / bicycle (par. 38, 42 and 43) based on detected obstacle(s) (par. 26 and 35 and Figure 1) and its determined direction and traveling speed (par. 33, 35, and 73 and Figures 3-4));
performing, when the mobile object is traveling in a direction that is considered to be the same as the traveling direction of the vehicle (e.g., Figures 3 and 5C show bicycle 53 traveling in the same direction as the vehicle 23 (par. 41 and Figure 3)), a notification if a current position of the mobile object is within a predetermined range from the vehicle (e.g., warning the vehicle’s passenger of impossible passing situation of an obstacle / bicycle (par. 38, 42 and 43) when the vehicle enters a contact-dangerous area (par. 40 and 41)).
However, Ikeda failed to disclose detecting / determining when the mobile object is traveling in a direction considered to be opposite to the traveling direction of the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Kenichi teaches a vehicle configured to determine a bicycle traveling in opposite direction to the vehicle 100 (par. 22, 23, 25 and Figure 7b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the vehicle traveling control device taught by Ikeda, such that the vehicle is configured to determine a bicycle traveling in opposite direction to the vehicle, in view of Kenichi, with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of preventing collision with a bicycle while the vehicle is traveling with an area (par. 1-2 and 5).
Ikeda, as modified by disclose Kenichi, performing a notification if a predicted position of the mobile object after a predetermined time is within a predetermined range from the vehicle (e.g., to warn the vehicle’s passenger of impossible passing situation of an obstacle / bicycle (par. 38, 42 and 43) when the vehicle enters a contact-dangerous area of the detected position of the object / bicycles 53 (Ikeda’s par. 40 and 41)) – for instance, when the bicycle traveling in opposite direction to the vehicle (Kenichi’s par. 22, 23, 25 and Figure 7b) ).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (Pub No.: US 2009/0182505 A1) in view of Kenichi (JP 2015014948 A – Machine Translation) and Inoue et al. (US 2019/0106103 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ikeda discloses traveling control device of vehicle wherein the notifier performs the notification based on the predicted position and the position of the vehicle when the mobile object is present outside the traveling lane of the vehicle (e.g., to warn the vehicle’s passenger of impossible passing situation of an obstacle / bicycle (par. 38, 42 and 43) when the vehicle enters a contact-dangerous area (par. 40 and 41) based on detected position of the object / bicycle 53 (par. 40 and 41) while the bicycle travels on the shoulder / roadside strip next to the traveling lane of the vehicle 23 (Figure 3 and related disclosure)).
Ikeda discloses traveling control device of vehicle configured to determine when the bicycle approach toward the vehicle road abruptly (par. 43).
However, Ikeda, as modified by Kenichi, failed to specifically disclose performs the notification based on the estimator estimates that the position of the mobile object after a predetermined time is present within the traveling lane.
However, Inoue et al. teach a driving assistance control device configured to determine when a bicycle enters a scheduled traveling route in a front of a vehicle (par. 2) and provide an alarm signal to a driver (par. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify the vehicle traveling control device taught by the combination of Ikeda in view of Kenichi such that vehicle traveling control device determines when a bicycle enters a scheduled traveling route in a front of a vehicle and provide an alarm signal to a driver, in view of Inoue et al., with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of achieving avoidance of contact with a bicycle entering vehicle traveling route (par. 2-3).
Regarding claim 14, Ikeda discloses traveling control device of vehicle wherein the outside of the traveling lane of the vehicle is a lane adjacent to the traveling lane of the vehicle (e.g., Figure 3 and 5C-5D show the shoulder / roadside strip where the bicycle travels as lane adjacent to the vehicle’s traveling lane (par. 41-42, 66-68 and 71 and Figures 3 and 5C-5D)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Braggin (US 2016/0023703 A1) is directed to a safety device for alerting a motor vehicle drivers of proximity of bicyclist.
Lapin et al. (US 2021/0403034 A1) is directed to a vehicle optimizing trajectory planner to generate vehicle trajectory based on predicted position of a bicycle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. 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.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights