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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,300,107(‘107). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
-- Claims 1,4, and 9 recite essentially the same subject matter as that of claims 1 and 10 of ‘107, including:
1) a recognition processing unit configured to recognize an obstacle existing in front of the vehicle on the basis of information detected by a front detection unit and a risk target existing at least diagonally behind the vehicle on the basis of information detected by a rear detection unit is equivalent to the at least one processor circuit, recognizing an obstacle existing in from of the vehicle, as detected by a front detection sensor and a risk target existing at least diagonally behind the vehicle on the basis of information detected by a rear detection sensor;
2) a sight line monitoring unit configured to determine whether or not a driver recognizes the obstacle or the risk target on the basis of an overlap between a sight line of the driver acquired on the basis of a captured image of the driver and the obstacle or the risk target is equivalent to determining whether or not a driver recognizes the obstacle or risk target on the basis of an overlap between a sight line of the driver acquired on the basis of appearance information of the driver captured by the camera and the obstacle or the risk target;
3) a reporting control unit configured to report the existence of the obstacle or the risk target and the reporting control unit performs the reporting when the driver does not recognize the obstacle or the risk target on the basis of the determination of the sight line monitoring unit and the reporting control unit performs the reporting when, on the basis of the determination of the sight line monitoring unit, the driver recognizes the obstacle and the driver does not recognize the risk target is equivalent to the processor of reporting the existence of the obstacle of the risk target, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor circuit to at least perform the reporting when the driver does not recognize the obstacle or the risk target on the basis of the determination.
The present invention does not teach:
1) the processor performing the reporting at a reporting level lower than a reporting level of the reporting or stop the reporting, when a braking operation by the driver is detected after the reporting.
The present invention recites the reporting control unit performs the reporting at a reporting level higher than a reporting level of the reporting, when it is determined that the driver does not recognize the obstacle on the basis of the determination of the sight line monitoring unit.
It would have been obvious that the processor performing a reporting a reporting level lower than a reporting level of the reporting group, would have inherently matched the claimed reporting level higher than a reporting level of the reporting when it is determined that the driver does not recognize the obstacle, because a braking action would have inherently lowered the reporting level, because this would have required an attention level from the driver that would indicate that an obstacle would have been recognized.
-- Claim 2 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 3 of ‘107, including:
1) the reporting control unit performs the reporting when a relative distance between the obstacle and the vehicle becomes equal to or less than a threshold distance is equivalent to the at least one processor circuit at least performing the reporting when a relative distance between the obstacle and the vehicle becomes equal to or less than a threshold distance, as recited in claim 3 or ‘107.
-- Claim 3 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 4 of ‘107, including:
1) the reporting control unit performs the reporting at a reporting level lower than a reporting level of the reporting or stops the reporting, when the driver recognizes the risk target on the basis of the determination of the sight line monitoring unit after the reporting is equivalent to the reporting at a reporting level lower than a reporting level of the reporting or stop the reporting , when the driver recognizes the risk target on the basis of the determination after the reporting, as recited in claim 4 of ‘107.
-- Claim 5 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 6 of ‘107, including:
1) the reporting control unit causes an output unit to output a stereophonic sound and reports a direction in which the risk target exists is equivalent to causing the processor circuit to at least output a stereophonic sound from an output speaker and report a direction in which the risk target exists, as recited in claim 6 of ‘107.
-- Claim 6 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 7 of ‘107, including:
1) the reporting control unit reports a direction in which the risk target exists using the stereophonic sound from the output unit provided in a headrest of a driver seat on which the driver sits is equivalent to causing the at least one processor circuit to at least report a direction in which the risk target exits using the stereophonic sound from the output speaker provided in a headrest of a driver seat on which the driver sits, as recited in claim 7 of ‘107.
-- Claim 7 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 8 of ‘107, including:
1) the reporting control unit does not perform the reporting when, on the basis of the determination of the sight line monitoring unit, the driver recognizes the obstacle as well as the risk target is equivalent to the at least one processor circuit not to at least perform the reporting when, on the basis of the determination, the driver recognizes the obstacle as well as the risk target, as discussed in claim 8 of ‘107.
-- Claim 8 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 9 of ‘107, including:
1) a vehicle comprising the reporting device according to claim 1, is equivalent to the vehicle comprising the reporting device as recited in claim 9 of ‘107.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights