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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/9/2025 and 3/19/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaminade, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0084558).
Regarding Claim 1, Kaminade teaches: A driving assistance device (Kaminade, Para. 0049-0050 – a “driving support system”) comprising:
a storage medium configured to store computer-readable instructions, and a processor connected to the storage medium (Kaminade, Para. 0049-0051 – a “microcomputer” including “a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, a no-volatile memory…” where the “CPU achieves various functions by executing instructions (program, routine) stored in the ROM”),
wherein the processor executes the computer-readable instructions to recognize obstacles including a first obstacle and a second obstacle present around a vehicle (Kaminade, See Fig. 5 Below and Para. 0049, 0055, 0119-0120 – the “driving support system” comprising a “vehicle surrounding monitoring device” which “detects one or more objects which are present around the own vehicle”; for example, Fig. 5 illustrates five moving objects) using at least one of a camera and a radar mounted in the vehicle (Kaminade, Para. 0056, 0077 – “a front side radar device” and “a rear side radar device” for “for detecting one or more objects” present “in a front side area” or “rear side area of the own vehicle”; the driving support system further including a “camera sensor”),
calculate a first collision margin time until the first obstacle collides with the vehicle and a second collision margin time until the first obstacle collides with a second obstacle (Kaminade, Para. 0130-0132 – “predicted collision time TTC is calculated for each and every moving object approaching the own vehicle” of a plurality of moving objects), and
execute driving assistance of the vehicle according to the recognized obstacle (Kaminade, Para. 0017-0019, 0022-0030, 0157 – the “driving support control” receives “information on the moving objects” and “performs the safety driving support control” including performing “a lane change support control for controlling steering in such a manner that the own vehicle changes lanes” and “an approaching alert control for alerting the driver”; further including an embodiment for performing “a collision safety control (an alert control and an automatic brake control) for preventing the own vehicle from colliding with the obstacle”), and
the processor excludes the first obstacle from operation targets for the driving assistance when the second collision margin time is shorter than the first collision margin time (Kaminade, Para. 0017-0019, 0130-0132, 0144-0146 – a “predicted collision time TTC is calculated for each and every moving object” and “radar ECUs” select “4 (four) top ranking moving objects (approaching objects) regarding the predicted collision time TTC”, where the “highest (first) priority is given to the moving object having the shortest TTC”, where the “top ranking moving objects” are provided to the “driving support means” for “preventing a collision accident”; for example, if a first moving object has a TTC longer than four other moving objects, the first moving object is excluded from the “4 (four) top ranking moving objects” provided to the driving support means for performing collision prevention).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaminade, Fig. 5
In regards to Claim 2, Kaminade teaches the driving assistance device of Claim 1, and Kaminade further teaches wherein, when at least one of the first obstacle and the second obstacle is moving, the processor calculates at least one of the first collision margin time and the second collision margin time on the basis of a future trajectory due to the movement (Kaminade, Para. 0092-0094, 0128-0132, 0146, 0155 – “predicted collision time TTC is calculated for each and every moving object approaching the own vehicle” of a plurality of moving objects; where, for example, if the moving object is a vehicle crossing in front of the own vehicle, or a “cross target object”, the predicted collision time TTC is a time until “the traveling path of the own vehicle and traveling path of the cross target object cross/intersect with each other” at a “predicted cross location Px”, where the traveling paths are extrapolated/predicted).
In regards to Claim 5, Kaminade teaches the driving assistance device of Claim 1, and Kaminade further teaches wherein the processor decelerates the vehicle when a collision margin time between the vehicle and the recognized obstacle becomes equal to or less than a threshold value (Kaminade, Para. 0087, 0095-0096, 0155-0157 – performing “a collision safety control (an alert control and an automatic brake control) for preventing the own vehicle from colliding with the obstacle”, for example, based on an “an automatic braking instruction”, when “the remaining time period Tx becomes equal to or shorter than the time threshold Tref” according to a “front area cross alert control” performed by the “driving support ECU”).
Regarding Claim 6, Kaminade teaches: A driving assistance method (Kaminade, Para. 0022, 0049-0050 – a “driving support system” for performing “driving support control”) comprising:
by a computer (Kaminade, Para. 0049-0051 – a “microcomputer” including “a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, a no-volatile memory…”),
recognizing obstacles including a first obstacle and a second obstacle that are present in the surroundings of the vehicle (Kaminade, See Fig. 5 Below and Para. 0049, 0055, 0119-0120 – the “driving support system” comprising a “vehicle surrounding monitoring device” which “detects one or more objects which are present around the own vehicle”; for example, Fig. 5 illustrates five moving objects) using at least one of a camera and a radar mounted in a vehicle (Kaminade, Para. 0056, 0077 – “a front side radar device” and “a rear side radar device” for “for detecting one or more objects” present “in a front side area” or “rear side area of the own vehicle”; the driving support system further including a “camera sensor”);
calculating a first collision margin time until the first obstacle collides with the vehicle and a second collision margin time until the first obstacle collides with a second obstacle (Kaminade, Para. 0130-0132 – “predicted collision time TTC is calculated for each and every moving object approaching the own vehicle” of a plurality of moving objects);
executing driving assistance for the vehicle according to the recognized obstacles (Kaminade, Para. 0017-0019, 0022-0030, 0157 – the “driving support control” receives “information on the moving objects” and “performs the safety driving support control” including performing “a lane change support control for controlling steering in such a manner that the own vehicle changes lanes” and “an approaching alert control for alerting the driver”; further including an embodiment for performing “a collision safety control (an alert control and an automatic brake control) for preventing the own vehicle from colliding with the obstacle”); and
excluding the first obstacle from operation targets for the driving assistance when the second collision margin time is shorter than the first collision margin time (Kaminade, Para. 0017-0019, 0130-0132, 0144-0146 – a “predicted collision time TTC is calculated for each and every moving object” and “radar ECUs” select “4 (four) top ranking moving objects (approaching objects) regarding the predicted collision time TTC”, where the “highest (first) priority is given to the moving object having the shortest TTC”, where the “top ranking moving objects” are provided to the “driving support means” for “preventing a collision accident”; for example, if a first moving object has a TTC longer than four other moving objects, the first moving object is excluded from the “4 (four) top ranking moving objects” provided to the driving support means for performing collision prevention).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaminade, Fig. 5
Regarding Claim 7, Kaminade teaches: A computer-readable non-transient storage medium that stores a program causing a computer to execute (Kaminade, Para. 0049-0051 – a “microcomputer” including “a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, a no-volatile memory…” where the “CPU achieves various functions by executing instructions (program, routine) stored in the ROM”):
recognizing obstacles including a first obstacle and a second obstacle that are present in the surroundings of the vehicle (Kaminade, See Fig. 5 Below and Para. 0049, 0055, 0119-0120 – the “driving support system” comprising a “vehicle surrounding monitoring device” which “detects one or more objects which are present around the own vehicle”; for example, Fig. 5 illustrates five moving objects) using at least one of a camera and a radar mounted in a vehicle (Kaminade, Para. 0056, 0077 – “a front side radar device” and “a rear side radar device” for “for detecting one or more objects” present “in a front side area” or “rear side area of the own vehicle”; the driving support system further including a “camera sensor”),
calculating a first collision margin time until the first obstacle collides with the vehicle and a second collision margin time until the first obstacle collides with a second obstacle (Kaminade, Para. 0130-0132 – “predicted collision time TTC is calculated for each and every moving object approaching the own vehicle” of a plurality of moving objects),
executing driving assistance for the vehicle according to the recognized obstacles (Kaminade, Para. 0017-0019, 0022-0030, 0157 – the “driving support control” receives “information on the moving objects” and “performs the safety driving support control” including performing “a lane change support control for controlling steering in such a manner that the own vehicle changes lanes” and “an approaching alert control for alerting the driver”; further including an embodiment for performing “a collision safety control (an alert control and an automatic brake control) for preventing the own vehicle from colliding with the obstacle”), and
excluding the first obstacle from operation targets for the driving assistance when the second collision margin time is shorter than the first collision margin time (Kaminade, Para. 0017-0019, 0130-0132, 0144-0146 – a “predicted collision time TTC is calculated for each and every moving object” and “radar ECUs” select “4 (four) top ranking moving objects (approaching objects) regarding the predicted collision time TTC”, where the “highest (first) priority is given to the moving object having the shortest TTC”, where the “top ranking moving objects” are provided to the “driving support means” for “preventing a collision accident”; for example, if a first moving object has a TTC longer than four other moving objects, the first moving object is excluded from the “4 (four) top ranking moving objects” provided to the driving support means for performing collision prevention).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaminade, Fig. 5
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose or sufficiently suggest the combination of features as claimed and arranged by applicant in claims 3 and 4 when read in light of the specification.
Rebhan, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0059855) teaches a method of “predicting trajectories of other vehicles which are about or already involved in a crash such that an evasion maneuver planning module can compute an evasion trajectory for the host vehicle that avoids or at least mitigates collision with other traffic objects” including “a crash situation model” which predicts the probability of each traffic object to be in an area at future points in time, and based on the predictions, causing the host vehicle to “evade the crash” at the determined positions “in order to avoid an impending collision” with any of the traffic objects involved in the crash (Rebhan, Para. 0023, 0068, 0094-0095). Rebhan does not teach wherein the processor excludes the first obstacle from the operation targets for the driving assistance when the second collision margin time is shorter than the first collision margin time and an overlap amount, as taught in claim3, (or an overlap rate as taught in claim 4 of the pending claims) between the first obstacle and the second obstacle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value.
Braennstroem, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2012/0203418) teaches a “method for reducing the risk of a collision between a vehicle hosting a collision avoidance system and a first external object” comprising “detecting if a collision involving the first external object has occurred in a vicinity of the host vehicle, and operating the collision avoidance system of the host vehicle, such that an emergency manoeuvre can be autonomously initiated by the collision avoidance system at an earlier stage if a collision was detected, as compared to if no collision was detected”, where the first external object “collides with a second external object” (Braennstroem, Para. 0016-0021). Similarly, Braennstroem does not teach wherein the processor excludes the first obstacle from the operation targets for the driving assistance when the second collision margin time is shorter than the first collision margin time and an overlap amount, as taught in claim3, (or an overlap rate as taught in claim 4 of the pending claims) between the first obstacle and the second obstacle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2021/0139052) teaches a task scheduling method including identifying obstacle information of an obstacle around a vehicle; determining a safety level of the obstacle according to driving information and the obstacle information of the vehicle; determining a driving task according to the obstacle information, determining a safety level of the driving task according to the safety level of the obstacle corresponding to the obstacle information; and performing a task scheduling according to the safety level of the driving task.
Lemelson, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,553,130) teaches a system and method which assists the driver of a motor vehicle in preventing accidents or minimizing the effects of same including using the distance and relative motion information for each of the identified collision hazards to priority rank the collision hazards based on expected time to collision and altering the motion of the vehicle sufficiently to prevent the collision hazard with the highest ranking priority and the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights