DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/371,360 filed on November 28, 2025 in which claim 5 was amended, claims 1-4 were cancelled, and claims 6-12 were added.
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
Claims 5-12 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 recites a method claim including the limitation “transmitting to a mobile body, a patrol instruction instructing the mobile body to patrol the pedestrian travel area, when the risk level is greater than a preset threshold value.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the transmission to be performed because the claims do not require that the risk level is greater than a preset threshold. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim 6 recites a method claim including the limitation “transmitting to the mobile body, a patrol instruction instructing the mobile body to patrol each of the divided pedestrian travel areas according to the vehicle traffic quantity in each of the divided pedestrian travel areas, when the risk level is greater than the preset threshold value.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the transmission to be performed because the claims do not require that the risk level is greater than a preset threshold. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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.
Claims 5, 7-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Newman, US Patent 10,694,357 (hereinafter Newman) in view of Abeykoon et al., US Publication 2020/0334470 (hereinafter Abeykoon), each cited on the Notice of References Cited dated August 28, 2025.
Regarding claim 5, Newman discloses a crime prevention method comprising “receiving a captured image transmitted from a vehicle; detecting a pedestrian from the captured image” (Newman col. 3, ll. 33-55) by receiving a thermal camera image of a nearby person (i.e., a pedestrian). Additionally, Newman discloses “estimating an attribute of the pedestrian from the captured image …” (Newman col. 4, ll. 5-22) by determining the pedestrian’s behavior (i.e., an attribute). Further, Newman discloses “estimating a pedestrian travel area where the pedestrian will walk based on the captured image” (Newman col. 4, ll. 41-42) by recognizing that the child may move into the roadway.1 Moreover, Newman discloses “calculating a vehicle traffic quantifying the pedestrian travel area” (Schofield et al., US Patent 8,.55,8392 col. 14, l. 45-col. 15, l. 13) by collecting traffic congestion information (i.e., traffic quantity). Likewise, Newman discloses “referring to a risk value database storing a risk value of a crime occurring in each present condition …” (Gandhi, T., and M.m. Trivedi. “Pedestrian Protection Systems: Issues, Survey, and Challenges.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 8.3 (2007): 4253) where a database system that stores characteristics of various traffic incidents and crimes, such as tailgating. Because each semantic value stored in the database is used to calculate a value for risk assessment, this database is a “risk value database” within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Newman also discloses “calculating a risk level of the pedestrian being targeted in a crime, based on the risk value stored in the risk value database corresponding to … the pedestrian and based on the vehicle traffic quantifying the pedestrian travel area” (Newman col. 6, ll. 34-67) by calculating risky behavior using any combination of the previously discloses methods. Finally, Newman discloses “transmitting to a mobile body, a patrol instruction instructing the mobile body to patrol the pedestrian travel area, when the risk level is greater than a preset threshold value” (Newman col. 6, ll. 34-67) by contacting emergency surfaces based on the detected risky behavior.
Newman does not appear to explicitly disclose that the attributes include the gender, age, and presence or absence of an accompanying person and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “estimating an attribute of the pedestrian from the captured image, the attribute including gender and age of the pedestrian, and presence or absence of a person accompanying the pedestrian;” referring to a risk value database storing a risk value of a crime occurring in each preset condition representing a combination of gender, age, and the presence or absence of a person accompanying the pedestrian;” or “calculating a risk level of the pedestrian being targeted in a crime, based on the risk value stored in the risk value database corresponding to the combination of gender, age, and the presence or absence of a person accompanying the pedestrian, and based on the vehicle traffic quantity in the pedestrian travel area.”
However, Abeykoon discloses a surveillance system that detects a person including the step of “estimating an attribute of the person from the captured image, the attribute including gender and age of the person, and presence or absence of a person accompanying the person“ (Abeykoon ¶ 97) by extracting features from the image including age and gender, as well as detecting the number of humans (i.e., the presence or absence of a person accompanying the person).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Abeykoon was combined with Newman, the specific person attributes of Abeykoon would be used with the risk value database of Newman. Therefore, the combination of Newman and Abeykoon at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitations “estimating an attribute of the pedestrian from the captured image, the attribute including gender and age of the pedestrian, and presence or absence of a person accompanying the pedestrian;” referring to a risk value database storing a risk value of a crime occurring in each preset condition representing a combination of gender, age, and the presence or absence of a person accompanying the pedestrian;” “calculating a risk level of the pedestrian being targeted in a crime, based on the risk value stored in the risk value database corresponding to the combination of gender, age, and the presence or absence of a person accompanying the pedestrian, and based on the vehicle traffic quantity in the pedestrian travel area,” rendering them obvious.
Newman and Abeykoon are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of surveillance systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Newman and Abeykoon before him or her to modify the surveillance system of Newman to include the attributes of Abeykoon.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve emergency identification capabilities of the surveillance system. (Abeykoon ¶ 4).
Regarding claim 9, it merely recites a server for performing the method of claim 5. The server comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Newman and Abeykoon comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 9 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 5.
Regarding claims 7 and 11, the combination of Newman and Abeykoon discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 5 and 9 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Newman and Abeykoon discloses “determining a type of the mobile body to which the patrol instruction is transmitted, based on a type of crime that is preset corresponding to the attribute of the pedestrian. (Newman col. 2., ll. 28-31 and 7, l. 62-col. 8, ll. 6) by detailing multiple types of emergency services and explicitly disclosing that certain types of behaviors illicit police response while others do not.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, the combination of Newman and Abeykoon discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 and 9 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Newman and Abeykoon discloses “determining the number of mobile bodies to which the patrol instruction is transmitted, based on a type of crime that is preset corresponding to an attribute of the pedestrian” (Abeykoon ¶ 36) where the quantity and type of first responders (i.e., patrol) are determined based on the type of emergency.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of Abeykoon, as applied to claims 5 and 9 above, and in further view of Agon et al., US Publication 2022/0119012 (hereinafter Agon), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated August 28, 2025.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, the combination of Newman and Abeykoon discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 5 and 9 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Newman and Abeykoon does not appear to explicitly disclose “dividing the pedestrian travel area into multiple areas; calculating a vehicle traffic quantity in each of the divided pedestrian travel areas; and transmitting to the mobile body, a patrol instruction instructing the mobile body to patrol each of the divided pedestrian travel areas according to the vehicle traffic quantity in each of the divided pedestrian travel areas, when the risk level is greater than the preset threshold value.”
However, Agon discloses a vehicle surveillance system that calculates pedestrian and traffic information “dividing the pedestrian travel area into multiple areas” (Agon ¶ 25) by dividing the region into bike lane and out of the bike lane. Additionally, Agon discloses “calculating a vehicle traffic quantity in each of the divided pedestrian travel areas” (Agon ¶ 25) by detecting vehicle 110 outside the bike lane. Finally, Agon discloses “transmitting to the mobile body, a patrol instruction instructing the mobile body to patrol each of the divided pedestrian travel areas according to the vehicle traffic quantity in each of the divided pedestrian travel areas, when the risk level is greater than the preset threshold value” (Agon ¶ 27) by monitoring the bike lane (i.e., a patrol instruction) when there is a risk of a jogger exiting the bike lane.
Newman, Abeykoon, and Agon are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle surveillance systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Newman, Abeykoon, and Agon before him or her to modify the vehicle surveillance of Newman and Abeykoon to include the pedestrian division method of Agon.
The motivation for doing so would have been that such prediction methods reduce driving complexity and intelligently allocate valuable system resources. (Agon ¶ 25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 28, 2025, with respect to the objections of claims 1-5 under 37 C.F.R. § § 1.75(g) and the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 7-8) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 1-5 under 37 C.F.R. § § 1.75(g) and the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed November 28, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) and 103, respectively, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Newman fails to disclose the newly added limitations. (Remarks 8-11). Applicant then argues that Agon also fails to disclose these limitations. (Remarks 11-12). Finally, Applicant argues Abeykoon fails to disclose the newly amended limitations, in their entirety. (Remarks 12). The examiner disagrees.
As discussed above in the amended rejection, although Newman fails to explicitly disclose the claimed attributes, it does disclose the use of a risk database. Further, Abeykoon does disclose these claimed attributes. Thus, the combination of Newman and Abeykoon at least teaches and/or suggests the newly added claim limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 See also, Walking Pedestrian Recognition, Curio et al. (Curio, C., J. Edelbrunner, T. Kalinke, C. Tzomakas, and W. Von Seelen) IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 1.3 (2000): 155-63), incorporated by reference at Newman col. 3, l. 56-col. 4, l. 4.
2 Incorporated by reference at Newman col. 3, ll. 45-55.
3 Incorporated by reference at Newman col.4, ll. 5-22.