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
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 19/219,633, filed on the same day and assigned to the same assignee. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to driving assistance devices that detect notification object(s), estimate driver line-of-sight, determine visual confirmation and recognition based on gaze, and suppress notifications while recognition is indicated. The additional limitations recited in the reference application, such as detection of a plurality of notification objects, object visual and recognition flags, proximity-triggered recognition, grouping of multiple objects, and suppression of notifications for the group, are predictable extensions of the recognition-based suppression logic recited in the present application and do not render the claims patentable distinct.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of the co-pending application have not in fact been patented. Upon issuance, this rejection may be made non-provisional, and the Applicant may overcome it by amending the claims to be patentably distinct or by way of filing a terminal disclaimer, if appropriate.
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, 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 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara (US 2020/0391752) in view of Akihiko et al. (JP-2022134352-A) (English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Hagiwara teaches a driving assistance device comprising: a detection unit configured to detect a notification object as a target for a notification to a driver of a vehicle on the basis of surrounding information of the vehicle; (see at least Hagiwara at [0002] which discloses that the present disclosure relates to a driving assistance device; see Hagiwara at [0028] which discloses that the driving assistance device 100 of the embodiment includes a vehicle surroundings imaging unit 101; see Hagiwara at [0029] which discloses that the vehicle surroundings imaging unit 101 captures a plurality of images corresponding to a plurality of directions around a vehicle to which the driving assistance device 100 is attached; see Hagiwara at [0132] element 214 in conjunction with Fig. 11 which discloses a moving object detection unit; see Hagiwara at [0135] which discloses that the moving object detection unit 214 detects a moving object from an image captured by the vehicle surroundings imaging unit 101 in all the oversight directions indicated in the oversight direction information given from the oversight direction judgment unit 111, and then gives, as attention calling information, moving object detection information indicating the detected moving object and the oversight direction information to the attention calling unit 212. Examiner notes that the attention calling information may be mapped to notification. Examiner maps vehicle surroundings imaging unit or moving object detection unit to the detection unit.)
an estimation unit configured to estimate a line-of-sight direction of the driver; (see at least Hagiwara at [0028] which discloses a sight line direction detection unit 103; see Hagiwara at [0048] which discloses that the sight line direction detection unit 103 detects the direction of the face of the driver and the direction of the eyeballs of the driver from the image captured by the driver imaging unit 102, to detect the sight line direction which is the direction of the driver's sight line. Examiner maps sight line direction detection unit to the estimation unit. Examiner maps sight line direction to line-of-sight direction of the driver.)
a first control unit configured to control a visual confirmation flag to turn ON in a case where the driver has visually checked the notification object on the basis of the line-of-sight direction, the visual confirmation flag indicating whether or not the driver has visually checked the notification object; (see Hagiwara at [0067] in conjunction with Fig. 4 which discloses a visual confirmation requiring confirmation table 109 in which “YES” is set in the visual confirmation requiring direction column 109c. Examiner maps YES to turning ON the visual confirmation flag. Also, see at least Hagiwara at [0075] which discloses that the attention calling unit 112 makes the output unit 113 display an oversight direction image which is an image corresponding to an oversight direction judged by the oversight direction judgment unit 111 out of a plurality of images captured by the vehicle surroundings imaging unit 101; see Hagiwara at [0076] which discloses that the output unit 113 outputs at least one of an image and a voice according to an instruction from the attention calling unit 112. Examiner maps image corresponding to oversight direction to the recited visual confirmation flag. Examiner maps the attention calling unit to the first control unit. Examiner notes that the image output corresponds to a visual confirmation flag indicating whether or not the driver has visually checked the notification object. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
Hagiwara does not expressly disclose a second control unit configured to control a recognition flag to turn ON in a case where the visual confirmation flag is turned ON, the recognition flag indicating whether or not the driver has recognized the notification object; which in a related art Akhiko teaches (see Akihiko at page 7 which discloses that the line-of-sight determination unit 13 performs various determinations regarding the line-of-sight 50 of the occupant based on the line-of-sight direction of the occupant detected by the line-of-sight direction detection unit 12 and that the line-of-sight determination unit 13 of the second and third embodiments includes an attention detection unit 22 instead of the switching detection unit 16 and the switching notification unit 17 of the first embodiment, and that the attention detection unit 22 is also part of the plurality of information processing units (11 to 22); see Akihiko at page 9 which discloses that when the occupant has visually recognized the first landmark (YES in step S29), the information notification device 10 sequentially checks whether the occupant has visually recognized the second and subsequent landmarks; see Akihiko at page 10 which further discloses that the required time acquired by the visual recognition determination unit 13 is defined as the reaction time from the display of the avatar image 82 until the passenger directs the line of sight 50 to the avatar image 82 may be stored in the running/visual recognition data storage unit 19. Examiner maps the recognition of the first landmark (YES in step S29) to the recognition flag which corresponds to the recognition of a landmark or notification object. Examiner notes that any one of the plurality of information processing units may correspond to the second control unit.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hagiwara to include a second control unit configured to control a recognition flag to turn ON in a case where the visual confirmation flag is turned ON, the recognition flag indicating whether or not the driver has recognized the notification object, as taught by Akihiko.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to restrain a user from being confused by using a display for guiding the user's visual line in a direction of a target object which has not been noticed by the user, as suggested by Akihiko at the Abstract.
The modified Hagiwara further teaches and a suppression unit configured to suppress the notification while the recognition flag is turned ON, (see Akihiko at page 5 which discloses that the marker display unit 15 may move the marker 41 on the projection plane via a curved trajectory; see Akihiko at page 6 which discloses that when the occupant notices the attention target 60 and moves the line of sight 50 toward the attention target 60, the second control is switched to the first control, and the positions of the markers 41 and 43 move to the target positions, the positions indicated by the markers 41 and 43 can be suppressed from confusing the occupant. Examiner maps the market display unit to the suppression unit.)
The modified Hagiwara further teaches wherein the first control unit controls the visual confirmation flag to turn OFF in response to the driver averting his/her line of sight from the notification object while the recognition flag is turned ON, and the second control unit controls the recognition flag to turn OFF in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied after the visual confirmation flag is turned OFF (see Akihiko at page 9 which discloses that if the occupant has visually recognized all the landmarks (YES in step S27), the series of procedures ends; Examiner notes that ending the series of procedures corresponds to ending or turning off any visual confirmation flags and recognition flags. Occupant recognition of all landmarks corresponds to the predetermined condition.)
Regarding claim 2, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the case where the predetermined condition is satisfied includes a case where a first predetermined time has elapsed (see Hagiwara at [0122] which discloses that the oversight direction judgment unit 111 sets an oversight direction judgment time length Tm (S21) and that the oversight direction judgment time length Tm is a time length for which a driver carries out visual confirmation, for example, and is previously determined. Examiner maps Tm to the first predetermined time.)
Regarding claim 4, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the second control unit controls the recognition flag to turn ON after a second predetermined time has elapsed since the visual confirmation flag is turned ON (see Akihiko at page 9 which discloses that when step S29 is looped a fixed number of times from the first visual confirmation, or when a certain amount of time has passed since the first visual confirmation, it is assumed that the occupant has visually confirmed the first landmark.).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the suppression unit prohibits the notification while the recognition flag is turned ON (see Akihiko at page 5 which discloses that the marker display unit 15 may move the marker 41 on the projection plane via a curved trajectory; see Akihiko at page 6 which discloses that when the occupant notices the attention target 60 and moves the line of sight 50 toward the attention target 60, the second control is switched to the first control, and the positions of the markers 41 and 43 move to the target positions, the positions indicated by the markers 41 and 43 can be suppressed from confusing the occupant. Examiner maps the market display unit to the suppression unit.)
Regarding claim 12, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the suppression unit reduces frequency of the notification while the recognition flag is turned ON, as compared to a case where the recognition flag is turned OFF (Akihiko at page 5 which discloses that the marker display unit 15 may move the marker 41 on the projection plane via a curved trajectory; see Akihiko at page 6 which discloses that when the occupant notices the attention target 60 and moves the line of sight 50 toward the attention target 60, the second control is switched to the first control, and the positions of the markers 41 and 43 move to the target positions, the positions indicated by the markers 41 and 43 can be suppressed from confusing the occupant. Examiner notes that suppressing the positions indicated by the markers corresponds to reducing the frequency of the notifications as compared to a case where the recognition flag is turned off. Examiner notes that the use of the recited suppression unit is more likely to occur when the recognition flag is turned on as compared to a case where the recognition flag is turned off.)
Independent claim 14 recites a driving assistance device that performs the steps recited in the driving assistance device of claim 1. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the device of claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above. Further, see Akihiko at page 3 which discloses that a notification signal may be output to the corresponding position calculator 14 teaches issuance of a notification in a case where a notification condition is satisfied, for example. Also, as was previously stated, Akihiko, at pages 5-6 teaches a suppression unit which suppresses notification by the notification unit even in a case where the notification condition is satisfied until a predetermined condition is satisfied after the driver has averted his/her line of sight from the notification object. Examiner maps confusion caused by the positions of the markers to the predetermined condition.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Hagiwara teaches a vehicle comprising the driving assistance device according to claim 1 (see at least Hagiwara at [0002] which discloses that the present disclosure relates to a driving assistance device; see Hagiwara at [0028] which discloses that the driving assistance device 100 of the embodiment includes a vehicle surroundings imaging unit 101; see Hagiwara at [0029] which discloses that the vehicle surroundings imaging unit 101 captures a plurality of images corresponding to a plurality of directions around a vehicle to which the driving assistance device 100 is attached.)
Independent claim 16 recites a control method for a driving assistance device that performs the steps recited in the driving assistance device of claim 1. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the device of claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Independent claim 17 recites a control method for a driving assistance device that performs the steps recited in the driving assistance device of claim 1. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the device of claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above. Further, see Akihiko at page 3 which discloses that a notification signal may be output to the corresponding position calculator 14 teaches issuance of a notification in a case where a notification condition is satisfied, for example.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Hagiwara teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the control method for a driving assistance device according to claim 16 (see Hagiwara at {0100] which disclose that the above-described programs may be provided through a network, or may be provided with them being stored in a recording medium and that the recording medium is, for example, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.)
Regarding claim 19, the modified Hagiwara teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the control method for a driving assistance device according to claim 17 (see Hagiwara at {0100] which disclose that the above-described programs may be provided through a network, or may be provided with them being stored in a recording medium and that the recording medium is, for example, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.)
Claims 3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara (US 2020/0391752) in view of Akihiko et al. (JP-2022134352-A) in view of Hiratsuka et al. (US 2024/0270239 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Hagiwara does not expressly teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the case where the predetermined condition is satisfied includes a case where a position and a trajectory of the notification object are changed beyond an allowable range which in a related art Hiratsuka teaches (see at least Hiratsuka at [0014] and [0045] which discloses a notification unit configured to notify the occupant of a warning when the obstacle is outside the visible range. Examiner maps an obstacle being outside the visible range to a case where a position and a trajectory of the notification object are changed beyond an allowable range.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hagiwara to include wherein the case where the predetermined condition is satisfied includes a case where a position and a trajectory of the notification object are changed beyond an allowable range, as taught by Hiratsuka.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to learn the visual field information of the occupant based on an execution state of a vehicle control for avoiding a collision between the vehicle and the obstacle when the obstacle is inside the visible range, as suggested by Hiratsuka at the Abstract.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Hagiwara does not expressly teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the notification is issued in response to the notification object entering a predetermined area in a traveling direction of the vehicle which in a related art Hiratsuka teaches (see Hiratsuka at [0014] which discloses that a notification unit is configured to notify the occupant of a warning when the obstacle is outside the visible range; and a learning unit configured to learn the visual field information of the occupant based on an execution state of a vehicle control for avoiding a collision between the vehicle and the obstacle when the obstacle is inside the visible range. Examiner maps the area outside the visible range to the predetermined area.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hagiwara to include wherein the notification is issued in response to the notification object entering a predetermined area in a traveling direction of the vehicle, as taught by Hiratsuka.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to avoid a collision between the vehicle and the obstacle, as suggested by Hiratsuka at the [0014].
Regarding claim 6, the modified Hagiwara does not expressly teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the notification is issued in response to a value becoming equal to or less than a threshold value, the value being obtained by dividing a distance between the vehicle and the notification object present within a predetermined area in a traveling direction of the vehicle by a relative speed between the vehicle and the notification object which in a related art Hiratsuka teaches (see Hiratsuka at [0039] which discloses that the predetermined vehicle control is, for example, a vehicle control executed when the driving assistance function of the pre-crash safety (PCS) is activated in the vehicle 1 and that in the PCS, as TTC (Time To Collision) for an obstacle is shortened, the vehicle control of the warning, the braking control, and the steering control is executed in stages. Examiner notes that shortening the TTC corresponds to the recited value becoming equal to or less than a threshold value. Examiner notes that the predetermined vehicle control may include providing notifications to the driver.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hagiwara to include wherein the notification is issued in response to a value becoming equal to or less than a threshold value, the value being obtained by dividing a distance between the vehicle and the notification object present within a predetermined area in a traveling direction of the vehicle by a relative speed between the vehicle and the notification object, as taught by Hiratsuka.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to execute a predetermined vehicle control for avoiding a collision between the vehicle and an obstacle, as suggested by Hiratsuka at [0039].
Regarding claim 7, the modified Hagiwara does not expressly teach the driving assistance device according to claim 1, further comprising a notification unit that issues a notification to the driver, wherein the notification unit issues the notification in a case where a notification condition is satisfied which in a related art Hiratsuka teaches (see Hiratsuka at [0050] which discloses that the notification unit 19 notifies the driver of the vehicle 1 of the warning via the HMI 6, that for example, the notification unit 19 notifies an audible alert such as a buzzer or a sound via a speaker of the HMI 6, that in addition, the notification unit 19 may notify a visual alert by displaying information of an obstacle via a display of the HMI 6, and that in addition, the notification unit 19 may notify a tactile warning via a vibrating unit of the HMI 6 provided on a steering wheel or an accelerator pedal of the vehicle 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hagiwara to include further comprising a notification unit that issues a notification to the driver, wherein the notification unit issues the notification in a case where a notification condition is satisfied, as taught by Hiratsuka.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide notification to a driver, as suggested by Hiratsuka at [0050].
Regarding claim 8, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 7, wherein the case where the notification condition is satisfied includes a case where the notification object has entered a predetermined area in a traveling direction of the vehicle (see Hiratsuka at [0049] which discloses that the notification unit 19 of the processor 13 determines whether or not the obstacle detected by the obstacle detection unit 15 is present inside the visible range of the driver estimated in the step S103, that for example, the notification unit 19 makes this determination by checking the direction of the obstacle and the visible range expressed in the same coordinate system (for example, a vehicle coordinate system based on the vehicle 1. Examiner maps visible range to predetermined area.).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 7, wherein the case where the notification condition is satisfied includes a case where a value obtained by dividing a distance between the vehicle and the notification object present within a predetermined area in a traveling direction of the vehicle by a relative speed between the vehicle and the notification object becomes equal to or less than a threshold value (see Hiratsuka at [0039] which discloses that the predetermined vehicle control is, for example, a vehicle control executed when the driving assistance function of the pre-crash safety (PCS) is activated in the vehicle 1 and that in the PCS, as TTC (Time To Collision) for an obstacle is shortened, the vehicle control of the warning, the braking control, and the steering control is executed in stages. Examiner notes that shortening the TTC corresponds to the recited value becoming equal to or less than a threshold value. Examiner notes that the predetermined vehicle control may include providing notifications to the driver.)
Regarding claim 10, the modified Hagiwara teaches the driving assistance device according to claim 7, wherein the case where the notification condition is satisfied includes a case where a temporal change of a value obtained by dividing a distance between the vehicle and the notification object present within a predetermined area in a traveling direction of the vehicle by a relative speed between the vehicle and the notification object indicates a decrease equal to or greater than a threshold value (see Hiratsuka at [0039] which discloses that the predetermined vehicle control is, for example, a vehicle control executed when the driving assistance function of the pre-crash safety (PCS) is activated in the vehicle 1 and that in the PCS, as TTC (Time To Collision) for an obstacle is shortened, the vehicle control of the warning, the braking control, and the steering control is executed in stages. Examiner notes that shortening the TTC corresponds to a temporal change associated with a decrease equal to or greater than a threshold value.)
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara (US 2020/0391752) in view of Akihiko et al. (JP-2022134352-A) and further in view of Fujimoto et al. (JP 2024050275 A) (English translation attached).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Hagiwara does not expressly disclose the driving assistance device according to claim 7, wherein the suppression unit makes the notification condition stringent such that the notification condition is less likely to be satisfied while the recognition flag is turned ON, as compared to a case where the recognition flag is turned OFF which in a related art Fujimoto teaches (see Fujimoto at pages 8-9 which discloses that as described above, the notification control unit 120 can notify the driver of appropriate information based on the driver's degree of awareness of the surroundings and the driver's actions, that for example, when the driver is performing a predetermined action, the notification control unit 120 does not perform an action suggestion notification, thereby reducing annoyance for the driver and that in particular, when the driver's operation amount on the accelerator pedal decreases or the driver stops operating the accelerator pedal, it is presumed that the driver is performing an action to avoid a risk object, and the notification control unit 120 suppresses notifications to the driver. Examiner maps a driver’s decreased operation amount on an accelerator pedal to the stringent condition such that the notification condition is less likely to be satisfied. Examiner notes that the use of the suppression unit is more likely to occur when the recognition flag is turned on as compared to a case where the recognition flag is turned off.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hagiwara to include wherein the suppression unit makes the notification condition stringent such that the notification condition is less likely to be satisfied while the recognition flag is turned ON, as compared to a case where the recognition flag is turned OFF, as taught by Fujimoto.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to suppress notifications to a driver to reflect the driver’s intentions, as suggested by Fujimoto at pages 8-9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights