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 the Response to Non-Final Rejection filed November 14, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
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 1-10, 12-16, and 18-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-10, 16, and 18-20, are directed to a system and method for detecting pedestrians at a crosswalk and encouraging a pedestrian that is separated from the group to rejoin the group through various methods. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations displayed in bold below:
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
identify, based on sensor data, a movement behavior of a pedestrian;
classify the pedestrian as trailing behind a group of pedestrians based on the movement behavior of the pedestrian and a movement behavior of the group; and
produce a group restoration countermeasure responsive to the pedestrian being classified as trailing behind the group, the group restoration countermeasure encourages the pedestrian to join the group.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. For example, a driver of a vehicle is able to see pedestrians standing/walking at a crosswalk and make mental determinations about the behavior of said pedestrians and how far apart they are. Additionally, if the driver determines that one or more pedestrians are trailing behind the main group, the driver may roll down the window and say something to the trailing pedestrian in order to motivate them to rejoin the group. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
identify, based on sensor data, a movement behavior of a pedestrian;
classify the pedestrian as trailing behind a group of pedestrians based on the movement behavior of the pedestrian and a movement behavior of the group; and
produce a group restoration countermeasure responsive to the pedestrian being classified as trailing behind the group, the group restoration countermeasure encourages the pedestrian to join the group.
The functions of the system, processor, memory, and sensor, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of the functions of the system, processor, memory, and sensor, amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claims 14 and 18 are comparable to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
The various metrics/variables/limitations of claims 2-10, 12-13, 15-16, 19-20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without recitation of any further additional elements. Therefore, tor the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 13-16, and 18-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paris et al. (US 10889295; hereinafter Paris, of record in IDS), in view of Fang et al. (US 20190236958; hereinafter Fang, already of record).
Regarding Claim 1,
Paris teaches
A system, (Paris: Abstract) comprising:
a processor; (Paris: Column 19, Line 63-65) and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions (Paris: Column 19, Line 59-63) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
identify, based on sensor data, a movement behavior of a pedestrian; (Paris: Column 4, Line 22-24 and Column 6, Line 3-12)
...
selectively enable an external output device responsive to the pedestrian being classified as trailing behind the group, the external output device generates a signal that encourages the pedestrian to join the group. (Paris: Paragraph [0069]-[0070]; “The autonomous vehicle can then respond to changes to the motion of the group of pedestrians in aggregate according to subsequent Blocks of the method S100 if the group continues to move in unison or transition to tracking and responding to pedestrians individually if the group begins to disperse following replay of the audio track.” When members of the group begin separating or lagging behind (i.e. dispersing) the system is configured to respond to individual pedestrians rather than the group as a whole.)
Paris does not teach
...
classify the pedestrian as part of a group of pedestrians based on the movement behavior of the pedestrian and a first threshold;
classify the pedestrian as trailing behind the group based on the movement behavior of the pedestrian, a movement behavior of the group, and a second threshold; and
...
However in the same field of endeavor, Fang teaches
...
classify the pedestrian as part of a group of pedestrians based on the movement behavior of the pedestrian and a first threshold; (Fang: Paragraph [0094]; Distance Threshold D5)
classify the pedestrian as trailing behind the group based on the movement behavior of the pedestrian, a movement behavior of the group, and a second threshold; (Fang: Paragraph [0089]-[0090]; “When the velocity differences (ΔV) between the pedestrians are all the predetermined value or smaller, the pedestrians 8k, 8m, 8n, and 8p are sorted into the same group G9, as shown in FIG. 11B.”) and
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Paris with the pedestrian classification based on behavior of Fang for the benefit of reducing the workload upon calculation when tracking a plurality of objects in a time series. (Fang: Paragraph [0006])
Regarding Claim 3,
Paris, in view of Fang, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein:
the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to identify the movement behavior of the pedestrian comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to identify a location of the pedestrian; (Fang: Paragraph [0065]) and
the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify the pedestrian as being isolated from the group of pedestrians comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify the pedestrian as being isolated from the group when the location of the pedestrian is a threshold distance away from a location of the group. (Fang: Paragraph [0068]; “For example, as shown in FIG. 5B, the three pedestrians 8c are sorted into the same group G1. The pedestrian 8d is separated from the other three pedestrians 8c by a distance d3. The distance d3 is greater than the threshold D1. The pedestrian 8d is sorted into another group G2.”)
The motivation to combine Paris and Fang is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4,
Paris, in view of Fang, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein:
the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to identify the movement behavior of the pedestrian comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to identify:
a direction of travel of the pedestrian; (Fang: Paragraph [0049]) and
a velocity of the pedestrian; (Fang: Paragraph [0088])
the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify the pedestrian as part of the group comprises a machine-readable instruction that when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify the pedestrian as part of the group based on the direction of travel of the pedestrian as being within a threshold range from a direction of travel of the group; (Fang: Paragraph [0049])
the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify the pedestrian as being isolated from the group of pedestrians comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify the pedestrian as being isolated from the group based on
the velocity of the pedestrian being greater than a threshold difference from a velocity of the group. (Fang: Paragraph [0089]-[0091])
The motivation to combine Paris and Fang is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5,
Paris, in view of Fang, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to identify, based on sensor data, the movement behavior of the pedestrian, further comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to identify the movement behavior of the pedestrian based on sensor data collected from at least one of an infrastructure environment sensor or a vehicle environment sensor. (Paris: Column 4, Line 22-24 and Column 6, Line 3-12)
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is analogous to Claim 3 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is analogous to Claim 4 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is analogous to Claim 3 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is analogous to Claim 4 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 4.
Claim 2, 6, and 13, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paris, in view of Fang, as applied to claims 1, 3, 13-16, and 18-20, above, and further in view of Horiuchi et al. (US 20220406076; hereinafter Horiuchi, already of record).
Regarding Claim 2,
Paris, in view of Fang, teaches
The system of claim 1,...
Paris, in view of Fang, does not teach
...wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify the pedestrian as trailing behind the group comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor causes the processor to classify the pedestrian responsive to the pedestrian and the group of pedestrians crossing a roadway.
However in the same field of endeavor, Horiuchi teaches
...wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify the pedestrian as trailing behind the group comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor causes the processor to classify the pedestrian responsive to the pedestrian and the group of pedestrians crossing a roadway. (Horiuchi: Paragraph [0022])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Paris, in view of Fang, with the pedestrian classification based on behavior and movement of Horiuchi for the benefit of giving notice to pedestrians that a vehicle is coming in order to prevent accidents and injuries or at risk pedestrians. (Horiuchi: Paragraph [0017], [0019])
Regarding Claim 6,
Paris, in view of Fang, and further in view of Horiuchi, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify the pedestrian as being isolated from the group of pedestrians comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to differentiate a group-associated pedestrian from a pedestrian unaffiliated with the group based on the movement behavior of the pedestrian and the movement behavior of the group of pedestrians. (Horiuchi: Paragraph [0022]-[0023])
The motivation to combine Paris, Fang, and Horiuchi, is the same as stated for Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 13,
Paris, in view of Fang, and further in view of Horiuchi, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to selectively enable the external output device comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to selectively enable the external output device with an intensity that is based on a degree of deviation between the movement behavior of the pedestrian and the movement behavior of the group. (Horiuchi: Paragraph [0064])
The motivation to combine Paris, Fang, and Horiuchi, is the same as stated for Claim 2 above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paris, in view of Fang, as applied to claims 1, 3, 13-16, and 18-20, above, and further in view of Whiting et al. (US 9460613; hereinafter Whiting, already of record).
Regarding Claim 7,
Paris, in view of Fang, teaches
The system of claim 1,...
Paris, in view of Fang, does not teach
...wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify the pedestrian as being isolated from the group of pedestrians comprises a machine-learning instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to compare the movement behavior of the pedestrian to baseline movement behavior.
However in the same field of endeavor, Whiting teaches
...wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to classify the pedestrian as being isolated from the group of pedestrians comprises a machine-learning instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to compare the movement behavior of the pedestrian to baseline movement behavior. (Whiting: Column 3, Line 9-15)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Paris, in view of Fang, and further in view of Saez, with the movement behavior comparison of Whiting for the benefit of greatly improving the ability to efficiently manage traffic environments. (Whiting: Column 2, Line 5-6)
Claims 8, 11-12, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paris, in view of Fang, as applied to claims 1, 3, 13-16, and 18-20, above, and further in view of Saez et al. (US 11007929; hereinafter Saez, of record in IDS)
Regarding Claim 8,
Paris, in view of Fang, teaches
The system of claim 1,
Paris, in view of Fang, does not teach
...wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to selectively enable the external output device comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to generate an audible or visual recommendation to the pedestrian to join the group.
However in the same field of endeavor, Saez teaches
...wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to selectively enable the external output device comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to generate an audible or visual recommendation to the pedestrian to join the group. (Saez: Column 6, 29-64)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the group restoration system of Paris, in view of Fang, with the specific countermeasures of Saez for the benefit of improving pedestrian safety. (Saez: Abstract)
Regarding Claim 11,
Paris, in view of Fang, and further in view of Saez, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to produce the group restoration countermeasure comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to impair an operational capability of a user device of the pedestrian. (Saez: Column 9, Line 8-31; “In some embodiments, if in-vehicle information system 102 establishes a communication session with pedestrian's portable device 140 and determines that distracted pedestrian 216 (shown in FIG. 2B) is listening to music, simultaneously with activating audio speaker or buzzer system 120, notification controller 114 may send instructions to controller 152 of pedestrian's portable device 140 to temporarily mute or turn off the music distracted pedestrian 216 happens to be listening to.”)
The motivation to combine Paris, Fang, and Saez, is the same as stated for Claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 12,
Paris, in view of Fang, and further in view of Saez, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to produce the group restoration countermeasure comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to provide an incentive to the pedestrian responsive to the pedestrian being within a threshold distance from the group. (Saez: Column 9, Line 8-31; “In some embodiments, if in-vehicle information system 102 establishes a communication session with pedestrian's portable device 140 and determines that distracted pedestrian 216 (shown in FIG. 2B) is listening to music, simultaneously with activating audio speaker or buzzer system 120, notification controller 114 may send instructions to controller 152 of pedestrian's portable device 140 to temporarily mute or turn off the music distracted pedestrian 216 happens to be listening to.” The incentive for the pedestrian to want to cross faster (i.e. rejoin the group) is wanting the operational capacity of their device to return to normal.)
The motivation to combine Paris, Fang, and Saez, is the same as stated for Claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is analogous to Claim 11 limitations with the following additional limitations:
...
...restore the operational capability of the user device responsive to the pedestrian joining the group. (Saez: Column 9, Line 8-31; “In some embodiments, if in-vehicle information system 102 establishes a communication session with pedestrian's portable device 140 and determines that distracted pedestrian 216 (shown in FIG. 2B) is listening to music, simultaneously with activating audio speaker or buzzer system 120, notification controller 114 may send instructions to controller 152 of pedestrian's portable device 140 to temporarily mute or turn off the music distracted pedestrian 216 happens to be listening to.”)
Therefore the claim is rejected under the same premise as Claim 11.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paris, in view of Fang, as applied to claims 1, 3, 13-16, and 18-20, above, and further in view of Perez Barrera et al. (US 20210035438; hereinafter Perez, already of record).
Regarding Claim 9,
Paris, in view of Fang, teaches
The system of claim 8,...
Paris, in view of Fang, does not teach
...wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to generate the audible or visual recommendation comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to instruct at least one of a vehicle in a vicinity of the group of pedestrians or an infrastructure element in the vicinity of the group of pedestrians to generate the audible or visual recommendation.
However in the same field of endeavor, Perez teaches
...wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to generate the audible or visual recommendation comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to instruct at least one of a vehicle in a vicinity of the group of pedestrians or an infrastructure element in the vicinity of the group of pedestrians to generate the audible or visual recommendation. (Perez: Paragraph [0034])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Paris, in view of Fang, with the recommendation generation of Perez for the benefit of preventing accidents between vehicles and pedestrians. (Perez: Paragraph [0002])
Regarding Claim 10,
Paris, in view of Fang, and further in view of Perez, teaches
The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to selectively enable the external output device comprises a machine-readable instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to generate a recommendation to the group to alter a pace of travel. (Perez: Paragraph [0034])
The motivation to combine Paris, Fang, and Perez, is the same as stated for Claim 9 above.
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 PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663