DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of JP2024-185780 filed 10/22/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (USPGPub 2024/0326857) in view of Sawada (USPGPub 2010/0030474). As per claim 1, Cho discloses a control device for mobile body; comprising: one or more processors configured to execute various types of controls based on the driving environment information (see at least paragraph 0008; wherein under the control of the processor, sensing occupant state information of an occupant in the vehicle, sensing vehicle state information of the vehicle that is autonomously driving and driving information of the vehicle, collecting the occupant state information, the vehicle state information, and the driving information, setting a risk of collision based on the collected information, and determining the set risk of collision based on a preset risk level; and projecting a risk object, which is an object having the risk, onto a glass of the vehicle based on a determination result obtained by the determining), wherein the various types of controls include risk avoidance control and alarm control related to the risk avoidance control, wherein the risk avoidance control is executed to avoid a collision with an object when the object that poses a collision risk with the mobile body is recognized, wherein the alarm control is executed for an occupant of the mobile body (see at least paragraph 0077; wherein the processor 140 may notify the occupant in advance of vehicle braking, steering avoidance control, and the like, which may change according to the risk of collision, using the AR HUD. The occupant may recognize in advance a driving state of the vehicle that is currently driving and information about vehicles around the vehicle through the AR HUD, and may thus intuitively recognize a driving environment of the autonomous driving system), wherein the risk avoidance control includes first avoidance control and second avoidance control, wherein the first avoidance control is executed before the collision risk reaches a prescribed level, wherein the second avoidance control is executed after the collision risk reaches the prescribed level (see at least paragraphs 0090-0094 and Figure 5; wherein the processor 140 may output a notification for level 1 through the display unit 130 when a real object from which a risk of collision is detected is located out of a preset distance range from a vehicle that is driving, and may output one of notifications for level 2 to level 4 through the display unit 130 when the real object is located within the preset distance range from the vehicle), wherein mobile vehicle control in the first avoidance control includes mobile body control with a smaller degree of collision avoidance with the object that poses the collision risk with the mobile body than the mobile body control in the second avoidance control (see at least paragraphs 0090-0094 and Figure 5; wherein Level 1, which is indicated as “1” in FIG. 5, may indicate that an autonomous vehicle recognizes a risk object tracked by an occupant, and may be displayed in blue on an AR HUD provided in the vehicle, for example. [0092] Level 2, which is indicated as “2” in FIG. 5, may indicate a case in which a risk of collision is 30% or greater and is increasing, and may be displayed in yellow on the AR HUD provided in the vehicle, for example. [0093] Level 3, which is indicated as “3” in FIG. 5, may indicate a case that accords with a criterion for operating collision avoidance warning and partial braking, and may be displayed in red on the AR HUD provided in the vehicle, for example. [0094] Level 4, which is indicated as “4” in FIG. 5, may indicate a case in which a risk of collision accords with a criterion for operating collision avoidance logic (e.g., full braking and steering avoidance) and may be displayed in blinking red on the AR HUD provided in the vehicle), wherein the alarm control includes warning that the second avoidance control is expected to be executed (see at least paragraphs 0090-0094 and Figure 5; wherein Level 4, which is indicated as “4” in FIG. 5, may indicate a case in which a risk of collision accords with a criterion for operating collision avoidance logic (e.g., full braking and steering avoidance) and may be displayed in blinking red on the AR HUD provided in the vehicle, for example. In the case of level 4, the processor 140 may notify that the system operates urgently by an auditory and tactile warning along with the blinking red on the AR HUD). Cho does not explicitly mention one or more memory devices in which driving environment information of a mobile body is stored. However Sawada does disclose: one or more memory devices in which driving environment information of a mobile body is stored (see at least paragraph 0024; wherein based on this range image, a well-known grouping process is performed and together with performing a comparison with a frame (window) of three-dimensional road shape data, side wall data, solid object data, and the like that are stored in memory in advance and extracting white line data, and data about roadside objects such as guardrails or curbstones that exist along the road, the stereo image recognition device 4 classifies and extracts solid object data as motorcycles, normal vehicles, large vehicles, pedestrians, power poles and other solid objects). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Sawada with the teachings as in Cho. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve safety, see Sawada paragraph 0003. As per claim 2, Cho discloses wherein the alarm control is executed during the execution of the first avoidance control (see at least paragraphs 0090-0094 and Figure 5; wherein Level 1, which is indicated as “1” in FIG. 5, may indicate that an autonomous vehicle recognizes a risk object tracked by an occupant, and may be displayed in blue on an AR HUD provided in the vehicle, for example. [0092] Level 2, which is indicated as “2” in FIG. 5, may indicate a case in which a risk of collision is 30% or greater and is increasing, and may be displayed in yellow on the AR HUD provided in the vehicle, for example. [0093] Level 3, which is indicated as “3” in FIG. 5, may indicate a case that accords with a criterion for operating collision avoidance warning and partial braking, and may be displayed in red on the AR HUD provided in the vehicle, for example. [0094] Level 4, which is indicated as “4” in FIG. 5, may indicate a case in which a risk of collision accords with a criterion for operating collision avoidance logic (e.g., full braking and steering avoidance) and may be displayed in blinking red on the AR HUD provided in the vehicle). As per claim 3, Cho discloses wherein the alarm control does not include a provision of information regarding the execution of the first avoidance control (see at least paragraph 0093; wherein Level 3, which is indicated as “3” in FIG. 5, may indicate a case that accords with a criterion for operating collision avoidance warning and partial braking, and may be displayed in red on the AR HUD provided in the vehicle). As per claim 4, Cho discloses wherein the second avoidance control includes deceleration control at a maximum deceleration of the mobile body (see at least paragraph 0094; wherein Level 4, which is indicated as “4” in FIG. 5, may indicate a case in which a risk of collision accords with a criterion for operating collision avoidance logic (e.g., full braking and steering avoidance) and may be displayed in blinking red on the AR HUD provided in the vehicle).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (USPGPub 2024/0326857), in view of Sawada (USPGPub 2010/0030474), and further in view of Grimm et al. (USPGPub 2019/0147744). As per claim 5, Cho and Sawada do not explicitly mention wherein the various types of controls include warning control to emit a warning sound toward an object when the object that poses a collision risk with the mobile body is recognized, wherein the warning control is executed simultaneously with or before the start of the execution of the alarm control. However Grimm does disclose: wherein the various types of controls include warning control to emit a warning sound toward an object when the object that poses a collision risk with the mobile body is recognized, wherein the warning control is executed simultaneously with or before the start of the execution of the alarm control (Grimm see at least paragraph 0052; wherein if the TTC for the potential collision is lower than the predetermined threshold value, the SSM determines what kind of alert to generate to cause the moving object to change course, stop moving, or take any other action to avoid the potential collision, as shown at block 370. The alert is generated using one or more external HMI components of the HMI system 26. For example, the alert may be generated activating chirps, horn, alarm system, or any other audible alert generation). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Grimm with the teachings as in Cho and Sawada. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve vehicle safety systems that prevent collisions, see Grimm paragraph 0003.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2026/0077761 – Provide a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a vehicle control system obtain a first angle between the orientation of a vehicle and the travel direction of the vehicle, obtain an avoidance course for avoiding an object located ahead of the vehicle, perform first angle control for bringing the first angle closer to a predetermined reference angle when causing the vehicle to follow the avoidance course, and selects either the steering actuator alone or a combination of the steering actuator and at least one of the braking and driving actuators as a control target in the first angle control based on a physical quantity resulting from tire forces of the vehicle. This makes it possible to improve accuracy of tracking the avoidance course. USPGPub 2025/0002046 – Provide end-to-end neural networks configured for autonomous and semi-autonomous driving. In particular, the technology disclosed relates to a scalable method and apparatus for training and validating an end-to-end network configured for autonomous and semi-autonomous driving.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights