DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s argument(s)/remark(s) filed on July 18, 2025; claims 1, 3, 5-17 and 19-22 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the following ground(s) of rejections. Applicant has amended claims 1, 19, 21 and 22 and canceled claim 2.
Claims 4 and 18 had been canceled previously.
Response to Argument
Regarding applicant’s argument(s) with respect to the amendment of the claims (page 8, par. 3, page 9, par. 2-3 and page 10, par. 3) , the examiner respectfully disagreed with applicant statement. Arguments are moot because Bai et al. teach a vehicle pedestrian communication system configured to deactivate transmission of basic safety message (BSM) of a pedestrian smart phone to a vehicle when the pedestrian enter a vehicle (par. 63) based on signal generated by vehicle sensor (GPS coordinate of vehicle) (par. 88 and 10) and the smart phone, or other sensor outputs (par. 60) – for instance, GPS position and time of pedestrian (par. 79 and 89, 36), which cover position of the pedestrian and vehicle to be similar, thereby reducing the power consumption of the smart phone (par. 63). Bai et al. also teach the implementation of keyless radio remote control for pedestrian to access a vehicle (par. 62) to determine when the pedestrian enter a vehicle (par. 63), which covers Bluetooth connectivity of the vehicle (par. 10-11) using standard protocol to stablish communication between the smart phone and the vehicle components. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, it is the examiner position that Takii et al. in view of Sutou et al. and Bai et al. disclose the claimed invention. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the Office Action below to view the ground of rejection, cited prior arts sections and motivation to combine the cited prior arts / references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the in-vehicle emission." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 19 and 1 do not provide explicit antecedent basis for the above term. It is noted that the term “ in-vehicle emission” had been remove from the independent claim 1; therefore, the amended claim raises issue with insufficient antecedent basis because it is unknown to what “in-vehicle emission” the claim refers to within the tagging apparatus.
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 of this title, 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 1, 3, 5-10, 11, 13-14 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii et al. (Pub No.: US 2019/0215671 A1) in view of Sutou et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0357284 A1) and Bai et al. (DE 102014110958 A1 – Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 14, Takii et al. disclose a pedestrian portable electronic device configured to communicate with autonomous driving vehicle in a public road via a wireless communication unit (pedestrian-to-vehicle communication) (see par. 3-4, 6, and 48, 55, 56-57 and Figure 3) comprising:
a plurality of active, electronic tags, each being adapted to be worn or carried by pedestrians – note: alternative limitations (e.g., a portable electronic device carried / worn by a pedestrian in a public environment to communicate with the vehicle, wherein the public environment includes transportation environment for vehicle(s) – e.g., autonomous vehicle. Furthermore, other portable electronic devices are configured to communicate with the vehicle, which are used by other pedestrians – see par. 48, 45);
wherein the tag further includes a wireless communications interface (e.g., a portable electronic device comprising a wireless communication unit - see par. 48); and
wherein the tags worn or carried by the pedestrians or objects send and receive messages to and from the AVs using the wireless communications interface, thereby enabling AVs to determine the location of the pedestrian (e.g., pedestrian’s portable electronic device(s) configured to send and receive related information to and from an autonomous driving vehicle in a public road via a wireless communication, wherein the pedestrian’s related information includes position / location and other related information – see par. 3, 6, and 48).
However, Takii et al. fails to specifically disclose wherein each tag includes one or more sensors enabling the pedestrians
Note: as previous limitation, this limitation refers to alternative limitation: the pedestrians or moving objects.
However, Sutou et al. teach a vehicle in communication with pedestrian’s smartphone (par. 46) – e.g., a plurality of smartphones 210 a / 210 b (e.g., claim 5 limitation) - associated with pedestrians 201a / 201b - to recognize position and movement of moving pedestrian within the vehicle surrounding (par. 78) and predict the behavior of moving pedestrian (par. 81) for collision avoidance / warning. Sutou et al. further teach the position of pedestrian’s smart phone via a GPS function (par. 27). Figures 6a-6c depict pedestrian 201a location with respect to vehicle 200 (e.g., claim 14: … information regarding … location … to proximal vehicle(s) … in the transportation environment) (par. 26-27, 45-46, 61 and 100-101; Figures 1 and 6a-c). Furthermore, Sutou et al. teach the implementation of a vehicle control system 100 comprising a situation prediction section 154 configured to predict behavior of moving object (e.g., pedestrian) surrounding the vehicle, which include predicting future position of pedestrian (see par. 80-81; Figures 3, 6a-6c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the pedestrian’s portable electronic device in communication with a vehicle as taught by Takii et al.’s such that the behavior of moving pedestrian surrounding the vehicle is predicted as taught by Sutou et al., with reasonable expectation of success, because it is notoriously well-known that pedestrians are heavily concentrated in their smart phones when transiting on a public area / environment and by providing awareness to the vehicle’s driver based on predicted behavior of distracted pedestrian, it would prevent accident with pedestrian while traveling to a destination.
Takii et al. as modified by Sutou et al., teach the position of pedestrian’s smart phone via a GPS function (Sutou et al.’s par. 27).
However, Takii et al., as modified by Sutou et al., failed to specifically disclose wherein the messaging from a pedestrian is disabled when the pedestrian enters a vehicle based on detecting similarity between position information associated with the pedestrian and position information associated with the vehicle, the position information associated with the pedestrian provided by the one or more sensors based on at least global positioning system (GPS).
Note: the specification defines the term “protocol” as a standard protocol communication – e.g., IP protocol – to stablish communication between devices; for instance, vehicle to pedestrian (V2P) (Pub. par. 205 and 183).
However, Bai et al. teach a vehicle pedestrian communication system configured to deactivate transmission of basic safety message (BSM) of a pedestrian smart phone to a vehicle when the pedestrian enter a vehicle (par. 63) based on (i) signal generated by vehicle sensor (GPS coordinate of vehicle) (par. 88 and 10) and the smart phone, or other sensor outputs (par. 60) – for instance, GPS position and time of pedestrian (par. 79 and 89, 36), and / or (ii) position of the phone in the vehicle’s seat or pants pocket of the driver and horizontal movement (par. 61), which cover position of the pedestrian and vehicle to be similar, thereby reducing the power consumption of the smart phone (par. 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to have further modified the pedestrian’s portable electronic device / smart phone in communication with a vehicle as taught by the combination of Takii et al. in view of Sutou et al., such that the smart phone deactivate transmission of basic safety message (BSM) to a vehicle when the pedestrian enters the vehicle, in view of Bai et al. with reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of reducing power consumption of the smart phone when the pedestrian enters a vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Takii et al. disclose a pedestrian portable electronic device as a wearable device, which include wrist-worn electronic tag (see par. 48).
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitations recited features on alternative form of rejected claim; therefore, Takii et al. in view of Sutou et al. and Bai et al. still read on the claimed combination alternative form.
Regarding claims 7-10, Takii et al. disclose a portable electronic device carried / worn by a pedestrian in a public environment to communicate with the vehicle – see par. 48, 45).
However, Takii et al.’s invention failed to specifically disclose a human interface within the active, electronic device to provide traffic status and notification to the wearer, wherein the traffic status and notifications to the wearer are (i) visual, (ii) audible and (iii) tactile.
However, Sutou et al. teach the implementation of a plurality of smartphones configured to notify the pedestrians a level of collision risk via display message, beep sound and vibration accordingly for avoiding injury; wherein the notification includes traffic congestion – see par. 44, 45, 59, 70, 81.
Given the teaching of Sutou et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Takii et al. invention to implement a mechanism / process to notify the pedestrians of a level of collision risk and traffic congestion via display message, beep sound and vibration accordingly for avoiding injury.
The modification would enhance a pedestrian to vehicle communication system configured to exchange information and provide notification to pedestrian(s) via display message, beep sound and vibration accordingly based on the level of collision risk with a vehicle and avoid injury.
Regarding claim 11, Takii et al. disclose a road-to-vehicle and inter-vehicle communication system including one or more infrastructure devices with sensors operative to detect vehicles entering, or within, an intersection (e.g., the vehicle’s wireless communication unit 10 is configured to transmit traveling information of the vehicle(s) (1A / 1B) to the infrastructure equipment (road-to-vehicle communication) – which includes information regarding the vehicle entering or within an intersection. For instance, the vehicles 1A and 1B are configured to perform communication with an infrastructure equipment via a communication network – refers to Figure 5; in this way, a server 30 of the communication network 30 can specify the vehicles’ position to other vehicle by referring to a vehicle position information table) (see par. 48, 40, 61 and Figures 3 and 5); and
wherein the infrastructure devices communicate the location of pedestrians or moving objects to the vehicles entering, or within, the intersection (e.g., the wireless communication unit 10 is configured to receive information relating to a pedestrian from the portable electronic device, which include position and to transmit the host vehicle traveling information of the vehicle to the portable electronic device (pedestrian-to-vehicle communication)) (see par. 48).
Regarding claim 13, Takii et al. disclose a pedestrian portable electronic device configured to communicate with autonomous driving vehicle and manual driving vehicle in a public road via a wireless communication unit (pedestrian-to-vehicle communication) to respectively controlling of the vehicle(s) based on the surrounding environment information (limitation: wherein the transportation system also manages the behavior of manually operated vehicles (MVs) sharing a transportation environment in common with the AVs) (see par. 3-4, 6, and 48, 50-51, 59-60, 55, 56-57 and Figure 3).
wherein the tags worn or carried by the pedestrians and objects send and receive messages to and from the MVs, enabling both the AVs and MVs to determine the location of pedestrians or objects in the transportation environment (e.g., portable electronic device(s) configured to send and receive related information (e.g., pedestrian position / location, vehicle travel information and other related information) to and from an autonomous driving vehicle in a public road via a wireless communication – see par. 3, 6, and 48).
However, Takii et al. fails to specifically disclose wherein both AV’s and MV’s to predict the future position of the pedestrian or object in the environment.
Note: as previous limitation, this limitation refers to alternative limitation: the pedestrians or moving objects.
However, Sutou et al. teach the implementation of a vehicle control system 100 comprising a situation prediction section 154 configured to predict behavior of moving object (e.g., pedestrian) surrounding the vehicle(s), which include predicting future position of pedestrian; wherein the vehicle(s) include(s) autonomous and manual vehicles (see par. 80-81; Figures 3, 6a-6c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the pedestrian’s portable electronic device in communication with a vehicle as taught by Takii et al.’s such that the behavior of moving pedestrian surrounding the vehicle is predicted as taught by Sutou et al., with reasonable expectation of success, because it is notoriously well-known that pedestrians are heavily concentrated in their smart phones when transiting on a public area / environment and by providing awareness to the vehicle’s driver based on predicted behavior of distracted pedestrian, it would prevent accident with pedestrian while traveling to a destination.
Regarding claim 19, Takii et al. as further modified by Bai et al. teach wherein the in-vehicle emissions includes emissions from an automated ignition key fob (pedestrian accessing a vehicle via keyless radio remote control (Bai et al.’s par. 62).
Regarding claim 20, Takii et al. fails to specifically disclose wherein the future position of the pedestrians or objects is predicted within a speed limit determined proximity distance that includes projected path, direction, and speed within a predetermined duration.
Note: the specification describes the term “a speed limit determined proximity distance” as pedestrian’s future location based on projection of path, direction and speed (see pub. of the specification: par. 183).
However, Sutou et al. teach a vehicle’s situation prediction section for performing a process of “predicting the situation related to the host car” (par. 80), wherein “the situation in the surrounding of the host car to be predicted includes … the behavior of moving object in the surrounding of the host car” – which cover the limitation “predicting future position of pedestrian” (par. 81). Sutou et al.’s invention defined “object” as human (par. 26) and recognized the moving human / object based on the position and movement – for instance, human / object’s speed, acceleration, moving direction and the like (par. 78) (e.g., limitation: within a speed limit determined proximity distance that includes projected path, direction, and speed within a predetermined duration) for collision avoidance / warning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the pedestrian’s portable electronic device in communication with a vehicle as taught by Takii et al.’s such that the behavior of moving pedestrian surrounding the vehicle is predicted as taught by Sutou et al., with reasonable expectation of success, because it is notoriously well-known that pedestrians are heavily concentrated in their smart phones when transiting on a public area / environment and by providing awareness to the vehicle’s driver based on predicted behavior of distracted pedestrian, it would prevent accident with pedestrian while traveling to a destination.
Regarding claim 21, the apparatus claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claims 1 and 20. The structure(s) and functional limitations of claim 21 are equivalent to the structure(s) and functional limitation of rejected claims 1 and 20.
However, Takii et al., as modified by Sutou et al., failed to specifically disclose wherein the messaging from a pedestrian is disabled when the pedestrian enters a vehicle based on detecting Bluetooth connectivity of the vehicle.
However, Bai et al. teach a vehicle pedestrian communication system configured to deactivate transmission of basic safety message (BSM) of a pedestrian smart phone to a vehicle when the pedestrian enter a vehicle (par. 63) based on (i) signal generated by vehicle sensor and the smart phone, phone’s g-sensor or other sensor outputs (par. 60), (ii) pedestrian accessing a vehicle via keyless radio remote control (par. 62), which covers Bluetooth connectivity of the vehicle (par. 10-11) (limitation: … detecting Bluetooth connectivity of the vehicle), and (iii) position of the phone in the vehicle’s seat or pants pocket of the driver and horizontal movement (par. 61), which cover position of the pedestrian and vehicle to be similar, thereby reducing the power consumption of the smart phone (par. 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to have further modified the pedestrian’s portable electronic device / smart phone in communication with a vehicle as taught by the combination of Takii et al. in view of Sutou et al., such that the smart phone deactivate transmission of basic safety message (BSM) to a vehicle when the pedestrian enters the vehicle, in view of Bai et al. with reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of reducing power consumption of the smart phone when the pedestrian enters a vehicle.
Regarding claim 22, the apparatus claim is rejected for similar reasons presented within rejected claims 19 and 1. The structure(s) and functional limitations of claim 22 are equivalent to the structure(s) and functional limitation of rejected claims 19 and 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii et al. (Pub No.: US 2019/0215671 A1) in view of Sutou et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0357284 A1) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Hazelton et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0231746 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Takii et al., as modified by Sutou et al., failed to specifically disclose wherein the infrastructure devices are operative to control intersection light sequencing or directional light functions based upon communications received from the infrastructure devices.
However, Hazelton et al. teach a traffic signaling device (road infrastructure) for controlling traffic light at an intersection and transmitting information regarding the state of each element of the infrastructure to autonomous vehicle(s) for avoiding collision (see par. 7, 42, 189, 190, 210, 230, 259, 271, and 287, and Figures 1A-1B).
Given the teaching of Hazelton et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to further modify Takii et al.’s invention to incorporate, within the road-to-vehicle and pedestrian to vehicle communication system, a traffic signaling device configured to control traffic light at an intersection and transmit information regarding the state of each element of the infrastructure to autonomous vehicle and pedestrian for collision avoidance and pedestrian safety.
The modification would enhance a road-to-vehicle and pedestrian to vehicle communication system configured to exchange information and provide notification to pedestrian(s) based on the level of collision risk with a vehicle, controlling traffic light at an intersection and transmitting information regarding the state of each element of the infrastructure to autonomous vehicle and pedestrian for collision avoidance and pedestrian safety.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii et al. (Pub No.: US 2019/0215671 A1) in view of Sutou et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0357284 A1) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (Pat. No.: US 9,381,916 B1).
Regarding claims 15-17, Takii et al., as modified by Sutou et al., failed to specifically disclose (i) wherein the messages allow for lateral deviation from a planned path for the purpose of collision avoidance (claim 15), wherein future position predictions are based on a time-based projection of path, direction, and speed (claim 16) and wherein the time-based projection for pedestrians is one to several seconds (claim 17).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhu et al. teach a system and method for changing “vehicle’s current path and speed based on the present of detected object” – e.g., a pedestrian (col. 7, lines 21-22) and on pedestrian movement prediction (col. 7, lines 9-10) (e.g., claim 15 limitation: lateral deviation and claim 16 limitation: a time-based projection of path, direction, and speed). As the vehicle predicts “the object’s future behavior” (col. 7, lines 44-47) to safely maneuver the vehicle around the pedestrian / object and given that “the object may have a particular behavior pattern that depend on the nature of the object” (col. 8, lines 60-64) – e.g., pedestrian crossing a corner while reading a smart phone, the vehicle system requires to predict pedestrian movement and behavior within a predetermined time (e.g., few seconds) to decrease the likehood of an accident and increase the efficiency of the vehicle travel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to have further modify the vehicle taught by the combination of Takii et al. in view of Sutou et al. such that the vehicle’s current path and speed are changed based on prediction of pedestrian future behavior within a predetermined time as taught by Zhu et al. with reasonable expectation of success, to safely maneuver the vehicle around the pedestrian to decrease the likehood of an accident and increase the efficiency of vehicle travel.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 16/180,739 filed on November 5, 2018, now U.S. Patent 10,909,866 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent
Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 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 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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached on 571 272 6919. 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.
/J.O.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656