DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 8, 2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 14, 16 – 20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Does claim 1 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 1 recites an information provision server. The body of claim 1 recites at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed server. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus
Does claim 8 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 8 recite an information provision method, and the body of the claim 8 positively recites a series of method steps. Therefore, claim 8 is directed to a process.
Does claim 14 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 14 recites a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium recording a program, the program causes a computer which can acquire information from at least one or more sensors to execute processing steps. The body of claim 14 positively recites a series of processing steps. Therefore, claim 14 is directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 1, 3 – 5, 8, 10 – 12, 14, 16 – 18 recite a judicial exception? Yes. The claims recite the limitations of
based on primary information acquired from at least one or more sensors sensing a predetermined range of the road, estimating position of an object located in a blind spot, and creating secondary information indicating the presence of the object located in the blind spot, wherein the secondary information is an image displaying the object located in the blind spot behind an object viewed as a real image (Claim 1, 8 and 14);
by using the primary information, determining kinds of objects located within the predetermined range of the road, and by using the primary information and the kinds, creating the secondary information (Claim 3, 10 and 16);
by using the primary information, determining priorities to be given to the objects located within the predetermined range of the road; and by using the primary information and the priorities, creating the secondary information (Claim 4, 11 and 17); and
creating the secondary information that prioritizes a display of an object with higher priority than other objects located within the predetermined range of the road (Claim 5, 12 and 18).
The estimating, creating and determining limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory” and “at least one or more sensors including a camera” nothing in the claim precludes the estimating, creating and determining steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or visually. For example, but for the processor, the memory and the sensor/camera language, the claims encompass the user to manually and/or visually perform the aforementioned steps. As such, these limitations are considered mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 1, 3 – 5, 8, 10 – 12, 14, 16 – 18 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claims 1, 3 – 5, 8, 10 – 12, 14, 16 – 18 recite two additional elements: at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor. The processor/memory in these steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of estimating, creating and determining data. There is no improvement to the functioning of the server or other technology recited in the claims. In addition, the claims fail to recite the transformation of an article. Moreover, no particular machine is recited beyond generic computer hardware. The mere invocation of a server to execute abstract data processing is insufficient. The generic processor/memory limitation(s) in the claims is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, claims 1, 3 – 5, 8, 10 – 12, 14, 16 – 18 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Do claims 1, 3 – 5, 8, 10 – 12, 14, 16 – 18 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claims 1, 3 – 5, 8, 10 – 12, 14, 16 – 18 are ineligible.
As to claims 6, 7, 13, 19 and 20, the additional elements recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 14, 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0005778 A1 to Breed et al. (herein after “Breed et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 8, 14 and 20,
the Breed et al. publication discloses an information provision server (see FIG. 10), comprising:
at least a processor (120)(see ¶161); and
a memory in circuit communication with the processor (see ¶161), wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to perform:
based on primary information acquired from at least one or more sensors sensing a predetermined range of the road (see ¶131 for “receiver means [which] may comprise a CCD array, a CMOS array, an HDRC camera, a dynamic pixel camera and an active pixel camera” that operate as at least one or more sensors sensing a predetermined range of the road), estimating position of an object located in a blind spot (see Abstract, ¶111, ¶113 – ¶124, ¶131 and ¶132 for detection of an object in the blind spot), the at least one or more sensors including a camera mounted on a mobile object running on the road (see ¶123 – ¶126, ¶131 and ¶178 – ¶184 for a camera mounted on the vehicle), the primary information including an image acquired from the camera (see ¶113 and ¶168 for images acquired by the camera); and
by using the primary information, creating secondary information indicating the presence of the object located in the blind spot (see ¶244, where “after [the primary information or] the identifications and positions of the objects are obtained, one or more systems in the vehicle may be affected based on the obtained [primary information or] identification and position of at least one of the objects. Such systems include a visual and/or audio warning system to alert the driver to the presence, position and/or velocity of objects in the blind spots”), wherein the secondary information is an image displaying the object located in the blind spot behind an object viewed as a real image (see ¶113 and ¶244).
As to claims 3, 10 and 16,
the Breed et al. publication discloses that by using the primary information, determining kinds of objects located within the predetermined range of the road (see ¶243, where “comparing the images of the exterior of the vehicle with stored images of objects external to the vehicle to determine which of the stored images match most closely to the images of such objects such that the identification of the objects and their position is obtained based on data associated with the stored images”); and by using the primary information and the kinds, creating the secondary information. (see ¶244, where “after [the primary information or] the identifications and positions of the objects are obtained, one or more systems in the vehicle may be affected based on the obtained [primary information or] identification and position of at least one of the objects. Such systems include a visual and/or audio warning system to alert the driver to the presence, position and/or velocity of objects in the blind spots”).
As to claims 6, 13 and 19,
the Breed et al. publication discloses that the object located in the blind spot is a person. (See ¶186, where “pedestrians in the blind spot can be tracked”.)
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.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Breed et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0272944 A1 to Gonclves (herein after "Gonclves publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 4, 11 and 17,
the Breed et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including using primary information to create secondary information. (See ¶244.)
The Breed et al. publication, however, fails to specifically disclose
by using the primary information, determining priorities to be given to the objects located within the predetermined range of the road; and by using the primary information and the priorities, creating the secondary information.
The Gonclves publication, however, discloses using primary information to determine priorities to be given to objects located within the predetermined range of the road. (See ¶27.) Such disclosure suggests using primary information to determine priorities to be given to objects located within the predetermined range of the road, and by using the primary information and the priorities, creating the secondary information.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Breed et al. publication to use primary information to determine priorities to be given to objects located within the predetermined range of the road, and by using said primary information and said priorities, create secondary information, as suggested by the Gonclves publication, in order to avoid colliding with objects in the environment.
As to claims 5, 12 and 18,
the Breed et al. publication, as modified by the Gonclves publication (see ¶27), is considered to disclose creating the secondary information that prioritizes a display of an object with higher priority than other objects located within the predetermined range of the road.
Claims 2, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Breed et al. publication in view of the Gonclves publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0379411 A1 to Harbach et al. (herein after "Harbach et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 2, 9 and 15,
the Breed et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the secondary information being the image displaying the object located in the blind spot in AR behind the object viewed as a real image.
The Harbach et al. publication discloses “a system of information gathering devices, displays and associated programmed hardware, and their methods of use, that provide, for example, increased driver visibility and blind spot prevention in vehicles, such as Class 8 trucks. The systems and/or methods can be employed alone or can be employed to augment other blind spot prevention aids, such as side view mirrors, etc. In some embodiments, the system is configured to employ augmented reality techniques and methodologies in order to “see-through” an obstruction in the driver's view. For example, it is known that a driver's view in a tractor-trailer combination is very limited when changing lanes or backing up, for example, into a tight loading dock, due to the presence of occluding vehicle objects, such as the semi-trailer, the sleeper cab, if equipped, other cab structure, combinations thereof, etc. As a result of the occluding objects being ‘virtually’ removed by the systems and methods of the present disclosure, improved visibility to the driver is provided, and increased safety and reduced property damage may be achieved.” (See ¶17.) Such disclosure suggests the secondary information being the image displaying the object located in the blind spot in AR behind the object viewed as a real image.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Breed et al. publication so that the secondary information is the image displaying the object located in the blind spot in AR behind the object viewed as a real image, as suggested by the Harbach et al. publication, in order to reduce accidents and/or severity of such accidents.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Breed et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0140881 A1 to Sakai (herein after "Sakai publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 7,
the Breed et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the predetermined range being an intersection of the road.
The Sakai publication, however, discloses “a vehicle-use visual field assistance system and information dispatch apparatus which enables the driver of a vehicle to directly ascertain the current conditions within a blind spot that is located in the field of view ahead of the driver, in particular, when the vehicle is approaching a street intersection.” (See ¶10.)
Such disclosure teaches the predetermined range being an intersection of the road.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Breed et al. publication so that the predetermined range being an intersection of the road, as suggested by the Sakai publication, in order to reduce accidents and/or severity of such accidents.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART
MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent toapplicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0180176 A1 to Yamamoto discloses an object detection system 10 that detects an object approaching the host vehicle 9 based on the captured image acquired by the camera 2 selected according to the operation mode. In a case where the object detection system 10 detects the object, the object detection system 10 notifies the user of the detection result via the display 3 and the speaker 4. Thus, the user can easily understand an object approaching from a position that is a blind spot for the user at an intersection having poor visibility, in a parking lot, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights