DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Amendments & Remarks filed on 01/20/2026 for application number 18/211,628 in which claims 1-11 were originally presented for examination on 06/20/2023.
Claims 1, 10 & 11 are currently amended, none of the claims has been cancelled, and claims 12-14 has/have been added as new claim(s). Accordingly, claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-102120, filed on 06/24/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2023 has been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 01/20/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding Interview summary: Examiner refers to interview summary mailed on 01/09/2026 for any agreement made with the applicant during the interview.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §103: Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of base claims 1, 10 & 11 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP-2007108926-A) as modified by Harper (US-2020/0156538-A1) & Hideo (JP-2005160064-A) have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are all focusing on new limitations added to the amended base claims 1, 10 & 11 apparently to overcome the current prior art rejections under §103 as recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 10/21/2025. Those arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment. Although the examiner does not necessarily agree with the applicant arguments, and in the interest of concluding the prosecution, new grounds of rejection is/are introduced to teach some of the amended limitations as outlined in the prior art rejections below. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new rejection outlined below
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §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 USC §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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-11, 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication No. JP-2007108926-A to Yamada et al. (hereinafter “Yamada”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 06/20/2023, in view of PG Pub. No. US-2020/0156538-A1 to Harper et al. (hereinafter “Harper”)
The rejections below are based on (1) the machine translation of the Yamada’s reference a copy of it is attached to the Non-Final Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form mailed on 05/08/2025.
As per claim 1, Yamada discloses a notification device (Yamada, in at least Fig(s).1 [reproduced here for convenience] & 5 and ¶¶46-49, discloses the control unit 29 for executing the warning process), the processor being [AltContent: arrow]configured to:
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
664
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamada’s Fig. 1 (emphasis added)
acquire current position information (Yamada, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 5 and ¶¶46-49, discloses the control unit 29 determines whether the vehicle is approaching the location where the dangerous driving condition occurred (S310), wherein “Approaching” here means arriving at a point a predetermined distance (e.g., 100 m) before the point where the dangerous driving condition occurred. Yamada further discloses the control unit 29 causes the display unit 26 to display a map of the area around the current position);
acquire information relating to danger spots at which dangerous driving has occurred in the past (Yamada, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 5 and ¶¶46-48, discloses the control unit 29 reads information about the location where the dangerous driving condition occurred from the SRAM);
providenotification in a case in which a distance between a current position and a danger spot has become less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (Yamada, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 5 and ¶¶46-49, discloses the control unit 29 determines whether the vehicle is approaching the location where the dangerous driving condition occurred (S310), wherein “Approaching” here means arriving at a point a predetermined distance (e.g., 100 m) before the point where the dangerous driving condition occurred. Yamada further discloses reporting the danger that is to display on the display unit 26 a message indicating the type of danger and the operation required to avoid the danger).
Yamada is silent on providing its disclosed danger reporting, by a speaker and vibrator, for a pedestrian and cause an output of a sound including a voice message from the speaker; and control a volume of the speaker and changing the voice message outputted from the speaker in accordance with the distance between the current position and the danger spot, and change a vibration amplitude of the vibrator in accordance with the current position and the danger spot.
Harper teaches, in at least Fig(s). 4, 5, 7 & 9, Abstract and ¶¶110, 131, 140-146 & 157 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, danger reporting for a pedestrian, by a speaker and vibrator, and cause an output of a sound including a voice message from the speaker (Harper, in at least Fig. 9 and ¶110, teaches the emitters 408 includes interior audio and visual emitters to communicate with passengers of the vehicle 402, which includes speakers, lights, signs, display screens, touch screens, and haptic emitters, e.g., vibration and/or force feedback, wherein one or more audio emitters, e.g., speakers, speaker arrays, horns, etc., to audibly communicate with pedestrians or other nearby vehicles, one or more of which comprising acoustic beam steering technology); and control a volume of the speaker and changing the voice message outputted from the speaker in accordance with the distance between the current position and the danger spot, and change a vibration amplitude of the vibrator in accordance with the current position and the danger spot (Harper, in at least Fig(s). 4, 5, 7 [reproduced here for convenience] & 9, Abstract and ¶¶110, 131, 140-146 & 157, teaches the emitters 408 includes speakers, and haptic emitters, e.g., vibration and/or force feedback, wherein one or more audio emitters, e.g., speakers, speaker arrays, horns, etc., to audibly communicate with pedestrians or other nearby vehicles, one or more of which comprising acoustic beam steering technology. Harper further teaches determining volume of warning signal (Step 712) based on the determined distance to the object (in Step 704), wherein techniques to dynamically adjust a volume and/or frequency of a sound emitted from a vehicle to warn an object, e.g., dynamic object, of a potential conflict with the vehicle, which include determining a baseline noise level and/or frequencies proximate to the object. Harper’s system further determines the volume and/or a frequency of the sound based in part on the baseline noise level and/or frequencies, an urgency of the warning, a probability of conflict between the vehicle and the object, a speed of the object, etc., wherein the process includes determining at least one of a volume or a frequency of a sound to emit, and the warning signal includes a variable frequency and/or variable amplitude audio signal).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
861
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Harper’s Fig. 7 (emphasis added)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada in view of Harper with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would provide techniques for improving vehicle warning systems (see at least Harper’s ¶¶12 & 110).
As per claim 2, Yamada as modified by Harper teaches the notification device for a pedestrian of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Yamada further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to acquire information relating to danger spots at which dangerous driving due to inattention by drivers of vehicles has occurred in the past, and does not acquire information relating to danger spots at which dangerous driving due to inattention by pedestrians has occurred (Yamada, in at least ¶43, discloses the notification method is to display on the display unit 26 points where the driver should pay attention together with the itinerary).
As per claim 7, Yamada as modified by Harper teaches the notification device for a pedestrian of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Yamada further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to acquire information including spots at which a number of times that speeding of vehicles has occurred in the past is a predetermined number or more, as the danger spots (Yamada, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 5 and ¶¶14 & 44-49, discloses the control unit 29 determines whether the vehicle is approaching the location where the dangerous driving condition occurred (S310), wherein “Approaching” here means arriving at a point a predetermined distance (e.g., 100 m) before the point where the dangerous driving condition occurred. Yamada further discloses the control unit 29 causes the display unit 26 to display a map of the area around the current position, wherein the dangerous driving judgment means were to take such information into account when making the judgment described above, it would be possible to set stricter criteria for speeding on rainy days, for example, and make a judgment that is more suited to the actual situation, wherein as shown in FIG. 4 , the control unit 29 causes the display unit 26 to display the route time, average speed, whether there was sudden braking, whether there was skidding, and whether other dangers occurred are displayed).
As per claim 9, Yamada as modified by Harper teaches a notification system comprising: the notification device of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Yamada further discloses a server configured to:
store information relating to the danger spots,
acquire travel information regarding times of travel from vehicles, and
update information relating to danger spots on the basis of the acquired travel information (Yamada, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 5 and ¶¶27 & 40-49, discloses data stored in a map data storage medium and/or via a communication network [implies a server], wherein information required for driving evaluation is obtained from the map data storage medium via the map data input device 25 and developed in the RAM, wherein the control unit 29 determines whether the vehicle is approaching the location where the dangerous driving condition occurred (S310), wherein “Approaching” here means arriving at a point a predetermined distance (e.g., 100 m) before the point where the dangerous driving condition occurred. Yamada further discloses reporting the danger that is to display on the display unit 26 a message indicating the type of danger and the operation required to avoid the danger).
As per claim 10, the claim is directed towards a method for a pedestrian that recites similar limitations performed by the notification device for a pedestrian of claim 1. The cited portions of Yamada & Harper used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 11, Yamada discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer to perform processing (Yamada, in at least Fig(s).1 [reproduced here for convenience] & 5 and ¶¶46-49, discloses a control unit 29 for executing the warning process), the processing comprising:
acquiring current position information (Yamada, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 5 and ¶¶46-49, discloses the control unit 29 determines whether the vehicle is approaching the location where the dangerous driving condition occurred (S310), wherein “Approaching” here means arriving at a point a predetermined distance (e.g., 100 m) before the point where the dangerous driving condition occurred. Yamada further discloses the control unit 29 causes the display unit 26 to display a map of the area around the current position);
acquiring information relating to danger spots at which dangerous driving has occurred in the past (Yamada, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 5 and ¶¶46-48, discloses the control unit 29 reads information about the location where the dangerous driving condition occurred from the SRAM);
providing, or equal to a predetermined threshold value (Yamada, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 5 and ¶¶46-49, discloses the control unit 29 determines whether the vehicle is approaching the location where the dangerous driving condition occurred (S310), wherein “Approaching” here means arriving at a point a predetermined distance (e.g., 100 m) before the point where the dangerous driving condition occurred. Yamada further discloses reporting the danger that is to display on the display unit 26 a message indicating the type of danger and the operation required to avoid the danger).
Yamada is silent on providing its disclosed danger reporting, by a speaker and vibrator, and causing an output of a sound including a voice message from the speaker; and controlling a volume of the speaker and changing the voice message outputted from the speaker in accordance with the distance between the current position and the danger spot, and changing a vibration amplitude of the vibrator in accordance with the current position and the danger spot.
Harper teaches, in at least Fig(s). 4, 5, 7 & 9, Abstract and ¶¶110, 131, 140-146 & 157 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, danger reporting, by a speaker and vibrator, and causing an output of a sound including a voice message from the speaker (Harper, in at least Fig. 9 and ¶110, teaches one or more audio emitters, e.g., speakers, speaker arrays, horns, etc., to audibly communicate with pedestrians or other nearby vehicles, one or more of which comprising acoustic beam steering technology); and
controlling a volume of the speaker and changing the voice message outputted from the speaker in accordance with the distance between the current position and the danger spot, and changing a vibration amplitude of the vibrator in accordance with the current position and the danger spot (Harper, in at least Fig(s). 4, 5, 7 [reproduced here for convenience] & 9, Abstract and ¶¶110, 131, 140-146 & 157, teaches the emitters 408 includes speakers, and haptic emitters, e.g., vibration and/or force feedback, wherein one or more audio emitters, e.g., speakers, speaker arrays, horns, etc., to audibly communicate with pedestrians or other nearby vehicles, one or more of which comprising acoustic beam steering technology. Harper further teaches determining volume of warning signal (Step 712) based on the determined distance to the object (in Step 704), wherein techniques to dynamically adjust a volume and/or frequency of a sound emitted from a vehicle to warn an object, e.g., dynamic object, of a potential conflict with the vehicle, which include determining a baseline noise level and/or frequencies proximate to the object. Harper’s system further determines the volume and/or a frequency of the sound based in part on the baseline noise level and/or frequencies, an urgency of the warning, a probability of conflict between the vehicle and the object, a speed of the object, etc., wherein the process includes determining at least one of a volume or a frequency of a sound to emit, and the warning signal includes a variable frequency and/or variable amplitude audio signal).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada in view of Harper with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would provide techniques for improving vehicle warning systems (see at least Harper’s ¶¶12 & 110).
As per claim 13, Yamada as modified by Harper teaches the notification device for a pedestrian of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Yamada further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to provide the notification until the distance exceeds the predetermined threshold value (Yamada, in at least Fig(s). 1 & 5 and ¶¶17-19 & 46-49, discloses the dangerous driving judgment means may be configured to make the above-mentioned judgment in real time (simultaneous with the driver's driving operation), or it may be configured to store the information necessary for the judgment in a memory means and make a judgment at a predetermined timing using the information stored in the memory means, wherein the "predetermined timing" referred to here means, for example, when driving has ended, after driving a predetermined section, after driving a predetermined distance, after a predetermined time has elapsed, or at the driver's request. Yamada further discloses the notification control means may be configured to cause the notification means to notify the plurality of pieces of danger location information and the danger information stored in the storage means at a predetermined timing, wherein the “predetermined timing” referred to here means, for example, when driving has ended, after driving a predetermined section, after driving a predetermined distance, after a predetermined time has elapsed, or at the driver's request).
As per claim 14, Yamada as modified by Harper teaches the notification device for a pedestrian of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Yamada is silent on Claim 14 limitations, however Harper teaches, in at least Fig(s). 4, 5, 7 & 9, Abstract and ¶¶110, 131, 140-146 & 157 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, danger reporting, wherein the processor is further configured to provide the voice message at a predetermined period (Harper, in at least Fig(s). 4, 5, 7 [reproduced here for convenience] & 9, Abstract and ¶¶110, 131, 140-146 & 157, teaches the emitters 408 includes speakers, and haptic emitters, e.g., vibration and/or force feedback, wherein one or more audio emitters, e.g., speakers, speaker arrays, horns, etc., to audibly communicate with pedestrians or other nearby vehicles, one or more of which comprising acoustic beam steering technology. Harper further teaches determining volume of warning signal (Step 712) based on the determined distance to the object (in Step 704), wherein techniques to dynamically adjust a volume and/or frequency of a sound emitted from a vehicle to warn an object [i.e., provide the voice message at a predetermined period], e.g., dynamic object, of a potential conflict with the vehicle, which include determining a baseline noise level and/or frequencies proximate to the object. Harper’s system further determines the volume and/or a frequency of the sound based in part on the baseline noise level and/or frequencies, an urgency of the warning, a probability of conflict between the vehicle and the object, a speed of the object, etc., wherein the process includes determining at least one of a volume or a frequency of a sound to emit, and the warning signal includes a variable frequency and/or variable amplitude audio signal).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada in view of Harper with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would provide techniques for improving vehicle warning systems (see at least Harper’s ¶¶12 & 110).
Claims 3, 6 & 12 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP-2007108926-A) as modified by Harper (US-2020/0156538-A1) and further in view of PG Pub. No. US-2019/0263395-A1 to Hoetzer et al. (hereinafter “Hoetzer”)
As per claim 3, Yamada as modified by Harper teaches the notification device for a pedestrian of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Yamada & Harper are silent on claim 3 limitations. Hoetzer teaches, in at least Fig. 4 and ¶54 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of detecting a driving dangerous condition, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire information including spots at which a number of times that vehicles have carried out sudden braking in the past is a predetermined number or more, as the danger spots (Hoetzer, in at least Fig. 4 and ¶54, teaches if emergency braking has already been triggered several times [i.e., a number of times that vehicles have carried out sudden braking in the past is a predetermined number or more], then this situation may also be stored in storage medium 5, and this information may be made available to the other road users … In addition, it is conceivable for the modification to be, that the first threshold value is changed and emergency braking is triggered already at low, or only at high danger thresholds or collision probabilities).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada & Harper further in view of Hoetzer, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - detecting a driving dangerous condition and the combination would provide gaudiness for triggering or the preparation of a warning of danger or of emergency braking (see at least Hoetzer’s ¶1).
As per claim 6, Yamada as modified by Harper teaches the notification device for a pedestrian of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Yamada & Harper are silent on claim 6 limitations. Hoetzer teaches, in at least Fig. 4 and ¶54 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of detecting a driving dangerous condition, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire information including spots at which a number of times that temporary stoppage violations of vehicles have occurred in the past is a predetermined number or more, as the danger spots (Hoetzer, in at least Fig. 4 and ¶54, teaches if emergency braking [implies temporary stoppage violations] has already been triggered several times, then this situation may also be stored in storage medium 5, and this information may be made available to the other road users … In addition, it is conceivable for the modification to be, that the first threshold value is changed and emergency braking is triggered already at low, or only at high danger thresholds or collision probabilities).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada & Harper further in view of Hoetzer, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - detecting a driving dangerous condition and the combination would provide gaudiness for triggering or the preparation of a warning of danger or of emergency braking (see at least Hoetzer’s ¶1).
As per claim 12, Yamada as modified by Harper & Hoetzer teaches the notification device for a pedestrian of claim 6, accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated. Yamada & Harper are silent on claim 12 limitations, however Hoetzer teaches, in at least Fig. 4 and ¶¶28, 45 & 54 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of detecting a driving dangerous condition, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a temporary stoppage in a case in which a speed of the vehicle is not zero at a spot of the temporary stoppage (Hoetzer, in at least Fig. 4 and ¶¶28, 45 & 54, teaches to notify, in good time, a vehicle, which has never traveled through the current dangerous location, of the dangerous location lying ahead, and to reduce the speed [i.e., a speed of the vehicle is not zero] early on or to generate brake readiness of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada & Harper further in view of Hoetzer, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - detecting a driving dangerous condition and the combination would provide gaudiness for triggering or the preparation of a warning of danger or of emergency braking (see at least Hoetzer’s ¶1).
Claims 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP-2007108926-A) as modified by Harper (US-2020/0156538-A1) & Hoetzer (US-2019/0263395-A1) and further in view of Patent Application No. JP-2003123185-A to Fushiki et al. (hereinafter “Fushiki”)
The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Fushiki’s reference a copy of it is attached to the Non-Final Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form mailed on 05/08/2025
As per claim 4, Yamada as modified by Harper & Hoetzer teaches the notification device for a pedestrian of claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated. Yamada & Harper are silent on claim 4 limitations. Hoetzer teaches, in at least Fig. 4 and ¶54 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of detecting a driving dangerous condition, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire information including spots at which a number of times that vehicles have carried out sudden braking (Hoetzer, in at least Fig. 4 and ¶54, teaches if emergency braking has already been triggered several times, then this situation may also be stored in storage medium 5, and this information may be made available to the other road users … In addition, it is conceivable for the modification to be, that the first threshold value is changed and emergency braking is triggered already at low, or only at high danger thresholds or collision probabilities).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada & Harper further in view of Hoetzer, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - detecting a driving dangerous condition and the combination would provide gaudiness for triggering or the preparation of a warning of danger or of emergency braking (see at least Hoetzer’s ¶1).
Yamada, Harper & Hoetzer are silent on immediately after a left or right turn limitation. Fushiki teaches, in at least ¶119 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of detecting a driving dangerous condition, that vehicles have carried out sudden braking immediately after a left or right turn (Fushiki, in at least ¶119, teaches When the user's means of transportation is a "car" and the other party is a "pedestrian" (1) When making a left turn, the user almost hits a pedestrian on the left side, (2) When turning right, he almost hit a pedestrian who was crossing the road he had entered, (3) A pedestrian ignored a traffic signal, (4) A pedestrian ran out onto the roadway).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, Harper & Hoetzer further in view of Fushiki, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - detecting a driving dangerous condition and the combination would provide warning and guides the driver and pedestrians so as to avoid a dangerous area in the case of passing through the dangerous area (see at least Fushiki’s Abstract & ¶6).
As per claim 5, Yamada as modified by Harper & Hoetzer teaches the notification device for a pedestrian of claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated. Yamada & Harper are silent on claim 5 limitations. Hoetzer teaches, in at least Fig. 4 and ¶54 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of detecting a driving dangerous condition, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire information including spots at which a number of times that vehicles have carried out sudden braking (Hoetzer, in at least Fig. 4 and ¶54, teaches if emergency braking has already been triggered several times, then this situation may also be stored in storage medium 5, and this information may be made available to the other road users … In addition, it is conceivable for the modification to be, that the first threshold value is changed and emergency braking is triggered already at low, or only at high danger thresholds or collision probabilities).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada & Harper further in view of Hoetzer, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - detecting a driving dangerous condition and the combination would provide gaudiness for triggering or the preparation of a warning of danger or of emergency braking (see at least Hoetzer’s ¶1).
Yamada, Harper & Hoetzer are silent on in the past on a plurality of roads connected to an intersection limitation. Fushiki teaches, in at least ¶¶119 & 131 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of detecting a driving dangerous condition, that vehicles have carried out sudden braking in the past on a plurality of roads connected to an intersection (Fushiki, in at least ¶¶119 & 131, teaches When the user's mode of transportation is "walking" and the other party is "driving" (1) While crossing an intersection, the user is almost hit by a vehicle turning left (2) While crossing an intersection, the user is almost hit by a vehicle turning right).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, Harper & Hoetzer further in view of Fushiki, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - detecting a driving dangerous condition and the combination would provide warning and guides the driver and pedestrians so as to avoid a dangerous area in the case of passing through the dangerous area (see at least Fushiki’s Abstract & ¶6).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP-2007108926-A) as modified by Harper (US-2020/0156538-A1) and further in view of PG Pub. No. US-20220101443-A1 to PG Pub. No. Yoshiki et al. (hereinafter “Yoshiki”)
As per claim 8, Yamada as modified by Harper teaches the notification device for a pedestrian of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
PNG
media_image3.png
374
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yoshiki’s Fig. 3
Yamada & Harper are silent on claim 8 limitations. Yoshiki teaches, in at least Fig. 3 and ¶¶32-44 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of detecting a driving dangerous condition, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire information including spots at which a number of times that sudden steering of vehicles has occurred in the past is a predetermined number or more, as the danger spots (Yoshiki, in at least Fig. 3 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶32-44, teaches Information indicating the danger point is a part of the map data, wherein a plurality of levels are set at this danger point according to the frequency of the accident, that is, the degree of danger. In this case, the map data storage apparatus 50 stores the information indicating a position of the danger point in association with information indicating the level described above, wherein FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of data stored in the calculation data storage unit 120 in a table format. As described above, the data necessary for calculating the second index from the first index is stored. This necessary data includes, for example, the number of sudden brakes, and the number of sudden steering wheel handlings).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada & Harper further in view of Yoshiki, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - detecting a driving dangerous condition and the combination would provide the likelihood of the accident involving the vehicle and stored points or areas at which a frequency of an accident is equal to or more than a criterion value as being a danger point (see at least Yoshiki’s ¶¶4 & 32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See previously mailed PTO-892 forms.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
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.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661