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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on February 5, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-7 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 5, 2026 have been fully considered.
[1] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant amends claims 1 and 7 to add "via wireless communication" to Claims 1 and 7. Based on this amendments, the notification processing for the first notification targets and the second notification targets does not constitute mental process, and therefore the claims as a whole aim to improve traffic safety in the entire target traffic area and integrate abstract idea into practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The wireless communication is described only generically and does not change the reasoning that the abstract idea can be performed mentally or in a generic computer with wireless communication functionality. It is just an example of prior art element that facilitates communicating with the notification targets. No structural details about how the added features enhance the functions of the claimed elements are described.
In this office action, 101 rejections are written for the amended claims.
[2] Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In this office action, Forscher is cited to reject the amended claims.
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a traffic safety support system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below with the category of abstract idea bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A traffic safety support system comprising:
a recognizer configured to recognize traffic participants as persons or moving bodies in a target traffic area and acquire recognition information regarding each traffic participant, based on information transmitted from a plurality of area terminals existing within the target traffic area;
a predictor configured to predict futures of a plurality of the traffic participants recognized by the recognizer on a basis of the recognition information [mental process/step];
a notifier configured to determine two or more first notification targets and one or more second notification targets among the plurality of traffic participants on a basis of a prediction result by the predictor [mental process/step] and
to notify drivers of the first and second notification targets by activating man-machine interfaces mounted on the first and second notification targets via wireless communication,
wherein the area terminals include an infrastructure camera that transmits image information of an intersection within the target traffic area of the recognizer, a traffic light control device that transmits state information of a traffic signal installed within the target traffic area to the recognizer, and an on-board device mounted on a moving body present within the target traffic area, and
wherein the recognizer acquires information including a position and a moving vector of each traffic participant and a lighting color and a timing for switching the lighting color as the recognition information based on information transmitted from the plurality of the area terminals,
the predictor comprises:
a classifier configured to divide the plurality of traffic participants recognized by the recognizer into a plurality of moving groups on a basis of the recognition information and acquire moving group information including a position, a shape and a moving vector of each moving group [mental process/step];
a first predictor configured to predict whether or not a collision will occur among the moving groups on a basis of the moving group information and specify collision sites in the moving groups that are predicted to collide [mental process/step]; and
a second predictor configured to, in a case where it is predicted by the first predictor that a collision will occur, determine two or more specific traffic participants among the plurality of traffic participants on a basis of the collision sites and predict whether or not a collision will occur among the specific traffic participants [mental process/step], and
the notifier Is configured to execute:
a processing to determine two or more the specific traffic participants as the first notification targets in response to a prediction of a collision by the second predictor [mental process/step],
a processing to determine traffic participants other than the specific traffic participants among traffic participants belonging to the moving groups predicted to collide by the first predictor as the second notification targets [mental process/step]:
a processing to activate the man-machine interface mounted on the first notification targets via wireless communication under a first notification mode, simultaneously to activate the man-machine interlace mounted on the second notification targets via wireless communication under a second notification mode with a lower notification strength than the first nonfiction mode [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The predictor and notifier are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer including wireless communication function that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via computer. This invention relates to predicting future of traffic participants, determining notification targets based on the prediction result, classifying the traffic participants into moving groups, predicting collision on group level and then predicting collision among specific traffic participants, and notifying with different notification strength per the classified targets. Activating the man-machine interface is only generically described to reflect the mental process of notifying differently for the first notification targets and the second notification targets. This invention is similar to a task of an air traffic controller who performs the task based on information on a monitor screen at a control tower. The classifying and predicting processes can be performed mentally or in a computer.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A traffic safety support system comprising:
a recognizer configured to recognize traffic participants as persons or moving bodies in a target traffic area and acquire recognition information regarding each traffic participant, based on information transmitted from a plurality of area terminals existing within the target traffic area [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
a predictor configured to predict futures of a plurality of the traffic participants recognized by the recognizer on a basis of the recognition information;
a notifier configured to determine two or more first notification targets and one or more second notification targets among the plurality of traffic participants on a basis of a prediction result by the predictor and
to notify drivers of the first and second notification targets by activating man-machine interfaces mounted on the first and second notification targets via wireless communication [mere post-solution activity],
wherein the area terminals include an infrastructure camera that transmits image information of an intersection within the target traffic area of the recognizer, a traffic light control device that transmits state information of a traffic signal installed within the target traffic area to the recognizer, and an on-board device mounted on a moving body present within the target traffic area [pre-solution activity (data gathering)], and
wherein the recognizer acquires information including a position and a moving vector of each traffic participant and a lighting color and a timing for switching the lighting color as the recognition information based on information transmitted from the plurality of the area terminals [pre-solution activity (data gathering)],
the predictor comprises:
a classifier configured to divide the plurality of traffic participants recognized by the recognizer into a plurality of moving groups on a basis of the recognition information and acquire moving group information including a position, a shape and a moving vector of each moving group;
a first predictor configured to predict whether or not a collision will occur among the moving groups on a basis of the moving group information and specify collision sites in the moving groups that are predicted to collide; and
a second predictor configured to, in a case where it is predicted by the first predictor that a collision will occur, determine two or more specific traffic participants among the plurality of traffic participants on a basis of the collision sites and predict whether or not a collision will occur among the specific traffic participants, and
the notifier Is configured to execute:
a processing to determine two or more the specific traffic participants as first notification targets in response to a prediction of a collision by the second predictor,
a processing to determine traffic participants other than the specific traffic participants among traffic participants belonging to the moving groups predicted to collide by the first predictor as second notification targets:
a processing to activate the man-machine interface mounted on the first notification targets via wireless communication under a first notification mode, simultaneously to activate the man-machine interlace mounted on the second notification targets via wireless communication under a second notification mode with a lower notification strength than the first nonfiction mode.
The examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application because recognizing traffic participant information with a position and a moving vector of each traffic participant is a mere pre-solution activity and notifying the targets is a post solution activity that that could be attached to the notification target determining process. The area terminals with infrastructure cameras and the traffic light control to provide traffic light status information are only generically described. Those are just examples of prior art elements that facilitates recognizing traffic participants. There is no integration to practical application.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 7.
Dependent claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or mere extra-solution activities, such as, acquiring driving capabilities information, predicting a risk posed to traffic participants around specific traffic participants that are predicted to collide, notifying with different notification strength, that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (JP 2011076527 A), which was cited by Applicant, in view of Khosla et al. (US 20230413026 A1) and Forscher et al. (US 20240062656 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa discloses:
A traffic safety support system {abstract of the English translation: a travel safety device} comprising:
a recognizer configured to recognize traffic participants as moving bodies in a target traffic area {page 2, line 34 – page 3, line 7 disclose detecting moving bodies that approach the traveling path of the vehicle, construed target traffic area} and acquire recognition information regarding each traffic participant {page 4, lines 22-30 disclose acquiring information about the recognized objects as traffic participants};
a predictor configured to predict futures of a plurality of the traffic participants recognized by the recognizer on a basis of the recognition information {page 4, lines 34-38 disclose predicting future of the recognized traffic participants};
wherein the recognizer acquires information including a position and a moving vector of each traffic participant {page 4, lines 22-30},
the predictor comprises:
a classifier configured to divide the plurality of traffic participants recognized by the recognizer into a plurality of moving groups on a basis of the recognition information and acquire moving group information including a position, a shape and a moving vector of each moving group {abstract: the plurality of moving objects are organized to groups, page 6, lines 3-9 disclose dividing traffic participants into moving groups based on position and moving vector. Fig. 3 shows the shape of the moving groups};
a first predictor configured to predict whether or not a collision will occur among the moving groups on a basis of the moving group information and specify collision sites in the moving groups that are predicted to collide {page 20, lines 9-25 disclose predict collision among the groups and specifying the collision site}; and
a second predictor configured to, in a case where it is predicted by the first predictor that a collision will occur, determine two or more specific traffic participants among the plurality of traffic participants on a basis of the collision sites and predict whether or not a collision will occur among the specific traffic participants {page 20, lines 9-25 disclose determining two traffic participants and predicting collision among them. A vehicle having the shortest arrival time is predicted to collide with the own vehicle}.
Ishikawa does not disclose:
[1] acquire recognition information based on information transmitted from a plurality of area terminals existing within the target traffic area.
[2] a lighting color and a timing for switching the lighting color as the recognition information based on information transmitted from the plurality of the area terminals.
[3] a notifier configured to determine two or more first notification targets and one or more second notification targets among the plurality of traffic participants on a basis of a prediction result by the predictor and to notify drivers of the first and second notification targets by activating man-machine interfaces mounted on the first and second notification targets via wireless communication.
[4] the notifier Is configured to execute:
a processing to determine two or more the specific traffic participants as the first notification targets in response to a prediction of a collision by the second predictor,
a processing to determine traffic participants other than the specific traffic participants among traffic participants belonging to the moving groups predicted to collide by the first predictor as the second notification targets:
a processing to activate the man-machine interface mounted on the first notification targets via wireless communication under a first notification mode, to activate the man-machine interlace mounted on the second notification targets via wireless communication under a second notification mode with a lower notification strength than the first nonfiction mode.
[5] wherein the area terminals include an infrastructure camera that transmits image information of an intersection within the target traffic area of the recognizer, a traffic light control device that transmits state information of a traffic signal installed within the target traffic area to the recognizer, and an on-board device mounted on a moving body present within the target traffic area.
[1] Khosla teaches area terminals within the target traffic area in paragraph [0104]: a vehicle 500 may be able to communicate with infrastructure 502 (e.g., a traffic light) using Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communication. [0108]: an intersection 600 with at least one traffic light. [0005]: The roadside entity may be a traffic light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the area terminals feature of Khosla with the described invention of Ishikawa in order to facilitate acquiring traffic information.
[2] Khosla teaches lighting color and timing information in [0113]: utilize signal change timing information associated with the traffic light… Green Light Optimal Speed Advisory (GLOSA) information may indicate that a green light is a few seconds away.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the lighting color and timing feature of Khosla with the described invention of Ishikawa in order to facilitate traffic control planning at an intersection
[3] Forscher teaches a notifier to notify drivers of a plurality of notification targets in paragraph [0016]: generate alerts to warn the other vehicles, road users, pedestrians, etc., of the detected threats/risks; and activating man-machine interfaces via wireless communication in [0066]: the alert can include an instruction to a driver of the trailing vehicle, [0018]: provide information (e.g., in the form of visual signals, audio signals, V2X communications, and/or V2V communications) to warn the trailing vehicle of a road user, [0021]: the systems and techniques described herein can use vehicle infrastructure to provide alerts to road users, vehicles, etc….a network communication interface (e.g., a V2E interface, a wireless antenna, etc.), and/or any other output device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the warning feature of Forscher with the described invention of modified Ishikawa in order to warn drivers of a plurality of notification targets.
[4] Forscher teaches determining the first notification targets and second notification targets in [0017]: To prevent a collision between the second vehicle and the other road user, the first vehicle may output one or more alerts warning the second vehicle and/or the other road user of the collision risk and/or indicating potential actions that may be taken to avoid such a collision; [0018]: the alerts generated by the autonomous vehicle can vary based on one or more factors such as, for example and without limitation, a predicted time to collision, the actors involved in the potential collision and/or threat/risk, the potential severity of such collision, the probability of such collision and/or the confidence level of the autonomous vehicle that such collision may occur, the type of collision, the conditions in the environment associated with the potential collision, and/or any other factors.
Examiner notes that the information for the actors involved in the potential collision differentiates the first notification targets and the second notification targets. If traffic participants are actors involved in potential collision, they are the first notification targets. If not, they are the second notification targets. Examiner note that [0018] also teaches the potential severity of such collision, the probability of such collision and/or the confidence level of the autonomous vehicle that such collision may occur, the type of collision, the conditions in the environment associated with the potential collision, and/or any other factors. That is, contents of alert for the first notification targets should be different from the contents of alert for the first notification targets since the above-listed factors are different depending on whether the targets are the actors involved in the potential collision. That is, it is implied that the second notification mode has a lower notification strength than the first nonfiction mode since the above listed factors are less severe for the second notification targets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first and second notification target determining and the different alert warning feature for each of the first and second notification targets features of Forscher with the described invention of modified Ishikawa in order to facilitate warning differing severity to the drivers of a plurality of notification targets.
[5] Khosla teaches infrastructure cameras in [0005]: Image information may be received from one or more cameras disposed in the area. [0008]: The RSU may also receive other information from cameras. [0022]: cameras located at the intersection; traffic light control device in [0097]: Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) is a communication model that allows vehicles to share information… traffic lights. [0098]: Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) is useful for optimizing traffic light control; on-board device mounted on a moving body in [0025]: user equipment (UE). [0096]: A vehicle may include an OBU which may have some or all of the components of the UE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the infrastructure camera, traffic light control and on-board device features of Khosla with the described invention of modified Ishikawa in order to in order to facilitate acquiring traffic information.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Forscher teaches: further comprising: a third predictor configured to, in a case where at least one of the two or more specific traffic participants that are predicted to collide by the second predictor takes collision avoidance action, predict a risk posed to traffic participants existing around the specific traffic participants {[0019] teaches taking collision avoidance action: to take and/or determine an action to take to avoid the collision}.
Examiner notes that taking collision avoidance action will change a position and a moving vector of each traffic participant, which in turn will trigger new predicting risk function as disclosed by Ishikawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the collision avoidance action feature of Forscher with the described invention of modified Ishikawa in order to evaluate influence of collision avoidance action.
Regarding claim 5, which depends form claim 1, Forscher teaches: wherein the notifier makes the notification strength of the second notification lower as a distance between the specific traffic participants and the second notification targets becomes longer {[0072]: the distance between the trailing vehicle and the animal decreases, the light associated with the visual alert can flash at a higher frequency to signify an increasingly imminent threat. Examiner notes that in the opposite case, that is, as the distance becomes longer, the notification strength is made lower}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the different notification feature of Forscher with the described invention of modified Ishikawa in order to notify different levels of collision risk depending on collision risk factor including distance.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 3, Forscher teaches: wherein the notifier is configured to execute a processing to determine the traffic participants predicted to be a risk by the third predictor as third notification targets: and a processing to activate the man-machine interlace mounted on the third notification targets under a third notification mode with a lower notification strength than the first notification made {[0019]]}.
Examiner notes the third notification target may be considered an updated notification target, and same provision for the second notification target including lower notification strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the different notification feature of Forscher with the described invention of modified Ishikawa in order to notify different levels of collision risk for updated traffic situation according to the collision avoidance action.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Khosla and Forscher and in further view of Suk et al. (US 20110144859 A1).
Regarding claim 2, which depends from 1, modified Ishikawa does not teach: further comprising: a driving subject information acquirer configured to acquire state information correlated with driving capabilities of driving subjects of the moving bodies recognized as the traffic participants by the recognizer, wherein the second predictor predicts whether or not a collision will occur among the specific traffic participants on a basis of the recognition information and the state information for the specific traffic participants.
Suk teaches to acquire state information correlated with driving capabilities in [0062]: the image recognition part analyzes the driver's state image date received from the image data acquisition part to determine whether the driver is drowsy or not, that is, driver state correlated driving capability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the driver state acquisition feature of Suk with the described invention of modified Ishikawa in order to consider driver’s state as a factor in predicting collision.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights