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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 10, 11 and 14 are canceled, therefore claims 1-9, 12-13 and 15-18 are pending for examination in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 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, 5, 8, 14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire et al. (Beaurepaire; US 2015/0228195) in view of Kim et al. (Kim; 2020/0168080).
As per claim 1, Beaurepaire an operation method of a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the operation method comprising:
receiving a crossing input from a pedestrian by the UE (gesturing [in line with applicant’s definition in paragraph [0008] of the specification] or pointing a UE to a vehicle; see e.g. para. [0055] and [0079]);
setting a predetermined area on a roadway based on a location of the pedestrian (causing a certain radius around the location of the at least one pedestrian based on the location information of the pedestrian; see e.g. para. [0058]);
selecting a vehicle that is likely to collide during crossing of the pedestrian from among vehicles (selecting one or more vehicles that are likely to collide with the vehicle and pointing the UE to the vehicle, see e.g. FIG. 11 and para. [0079], wherein the pedestrian and the vehicle within a proximity of one another; see e.g. para. [0044]);
based on that the selected vehicle is a selected one or more vehicles, transmitting a personal safety message (PSM) including information related to a crossing request of the pedestrian, to be transmitted to the selected one or more vehicles, by the UE (emphasis added) (transmitting a message including a request to cross, i.e. “please stop”, wherein the transmission is based on a selected one or more vehicles to which the pedestrian points his phone, see e.g. FIG. 11 and para. [0079]);
receiving a basic safety message (BSM) including a response to the crossing request, transmitted from all of the selected one or more vehicles (receiving a response to the request, i.e. “OK”; see e.g. FIG. 11 and para. [0079]); and
based on the response from all the selected one or more vehicles, displaying crossing request acceptance information on a display unit by the UE (a presentation corresponding to the request in the at least one UE, wherein the presentation can be a text message or images from the selected one or more vehicles; see e.g. para. [0059])
wherein the UE displays the crossing request acceptance information only when approval for crossing request from all the selected vehicles is received (the selected vehicle can be a single vehicle [one or more] as underlined above, which is disclosed by Beaurepaire; furthermore, a response or acceptance from the vehicle can received and display as a text message or image as discussed earlier; see e.g. para. [0059] and FIG. 11).
Beaurepaire does not explicitly teach that the selecting is in the predetermined area and the request response information is accepted only within a predetermined time.
Kim, however, teaches selecting and outputting one or more messages in a predetermined area (see e.g. para. [0032]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to output the request of Beaurepaire within the disclosed radius using one or more applications, application 103 as suggested by Beaurepaire (see e.g. para. [0060]).
Beaurepaire and Kim are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of avoiding unintended communication at unintended vehicles which may overwhelm a driver which is not desired.
Beaurepaire and Kim do not explicitly teach that the request response information is accepted only within a predetermined time.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that communicating devices cannot wait indefinitely for a response and a response within a certain time period is considered acceptable. For example, Kubo teaches a communication device for requesting a response from an opposing communication device and waiting for a certain time period (see e.g. para. [0002]). Similarly, it would have been obvious in the disclosed system of Beaurepaire to wait for a response for a predetermined period of time before considering expiration of outputted request.
Beaurepaire, Kim and Kubo are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing processing burden and/or improved battery life for communication device which initiated the request.
As per claim 3, the operation method of claim 1 as taught by Beaurepaire, Kim and Kubo, wherein the crossing input is one of input through a request button of a user interface (UI) of the UE, input through voice recognition, input through a predetermined gesture of the pedestrian (gesture or pointing of the UE by a pedestrian as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1; see e.g. para. [0055] of Beaurepaire), and input after the UE determines crossing intention of the pedestrian.
As per claim 5, the operation method of claim 1 as taught by Beaurepaire, Kim and Kubo, wherein the vehicle is selected vehicle within the predetermined area as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1. Even though Beaurepaire does not explicitly teach that the selected vehicle is any vehicle except a vehicle with a speed of 0, Beaurepaire teaches that at least one pedestrian requests the at least one moving vehicle to stop by pointing his mobile communication device at the at least one moving vehicle (see e.g. para. [0079]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to not output such a request to a vehicle which is already stopped or has a zero speed.
As per claim 8, the operation method of claim 1 as taught by Beaurepaire, Kim and Kubo, wherein the selected vehicle is a vehicle closest to the pedestrian for each lane within the predetermined area (the selected vehicle 1105 is closest to the pedestrian 1101 for each lane, see e.g. FIG. 11 of Beaurepaire, within the predetermined area).
As per claim 14, the operation method of claim 1 Beaurepaire, Kim and Kubo, wherein, based on absence of the selected vehicle, the UE displays crossing request acceptance information on a display unit (the disclosed system of Beaurepaire teaches a selection of a vehicle and communicating with the vehicle to send a request and get an approval of the request as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1 (see e.g. FIG. 11 and para. [0079]). If the vehicle is not there, any display content following the transmission of the request can be interpreted as crossing request acceptance information).
As per claims 16-18, they are interpreted and rejected as being similar to claim 1.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire in view of Kim, Kubo and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2019/0144001).
As per claim 2, the operation method of claim 1 as taught by Beaurepaire, Kim and Kubo, wherein information related to the crossing request as taught by Beaurepaire. Beaurepaire, however, does not teach a vehicle list field as a set of identifiers of the selected vehicles.
Choi, however, teaches a vehicle list field as a set of identifiers of selected vehicles (displaying a plurality of vehicles identifiers, see e.g. FIG. 10, and making a selection from the list; see e.g. para. [0017] and claim 6). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to present a list of vehicles on the disclosed system of Beaurepaire to make a user selection to carry out the crossing request.
Beaurepaire, Kim, Kubo and Choi are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved reliability or reduce nuisance caused by communicating with a undesired vehicle.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire in view of Kim, Kubo and further in view of Smit et al. (Smit; WO 2016162122).
As per claim 4, the operation method of claim 1 as taught by Beaurepaire, Kim and Kubo, except the claimed wherein the predetermined area is an area input from the pedestrian or is determined by the UE based on a road width, a lane, and a speed limit.
Smit, however, predetermined area is an area input from a pedestrian (a user interface through which a user of the respective device may input data or instructions, wherein the user input may be a variation of the predefined alert zone; see e.g. para. [0030-31]). Beaurepaire, Kim, Kubo and Smit are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving user control based on different environmental conditions, rural or urban for example.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire in view of Kim, Kubo and further in view of You et al. (You; US 2018/0162388).
As per claim 6, the operation method of claim 1 as taught by Beaurepaire, Kim and Kubo, wherein the selected vehicle is a vehicle within a predetermined area as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1. However, the prior art references do not explicitly teach an expected collision time with the pedestrian within the predetermined area falls between a first threshold and a second threshold.
You, however, teaches an expected collision time within the predetermined area falls between a first threshold and a second threshold (determine if time to collision is between a first threshold and a second threshold; see e.g. para. [0010] and [0014]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Beaurepaire such that it can determine a collision time with a pedestrian which falls between a first and a second threshold as suggested by You.
Beaurepaire, Kim, Kubo and You are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of avoiding a dangerous situation or reduce accidents with pedestrians as suggested by You.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire in view of Kim, Kubo, You and further in view of Patel et al. (Patel; 2016/0264047).
As per claim 7, the operation method of claim 6 as taught by Beaurepaire, Kim, Kubo and You, wherein the first threshold is a minimum time required from a time of receiving the crossing input to a time of displaying the crossing request acceptance information (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, a request is sent and a response is received by a mobile device which is inherently associated with a time delay or first threshold. Furthermore, You also teaches a first and second threshold as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 6). Beaurepaire, Kim, Kubo and You do not teach that the second threshold is one of a value input from a user, a value determined based on measurement, and a value determined by the UE.
Patel, however, teaches second threshold is one of a value input from a user, a value determined based on measurement, and a value determined by the UE (user input includes criteria such as a static or dynamic time to collision; see e.g. [0026]). Similarly, it would have been obvious to set a time to collision threshold based on a user input for the disclosed systems of Beaurepaire, Kim or You.
Beaurepaire, Kim, Kubo You and Patel are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing accidents with pedestrians in different environmental conditions and/or improve user control/experience which is desired.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire in view of Kim, Kubo and further in view of Son et al. (US 2019/0035277).
As per claim 9, the operation method of claim 1 as taught by Beaurepaire, Kim, and Kubo, except the claimed wherein the PSM is transmitted to a message queuing telemetry transport (MQTT) server, and the MQTT server transmits the PSM to the one or more vehicles in unicast.
Son, however, teaches one or more messages between one or more devices are transmitted to via a server (see e.g. para. [0054]), and the server transmits the PSM to the one or more devices in unicast (wherein the communication between the server and the destination device would be a unicast). Even though Son does not explicitly teach that the server is MQTT, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use any type of server because it would depend on cost and number of intended users.
Beaurepaire, Kim, Kubo and Son are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing processing burden for individual local devices.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire in view of Kim, Kubo and further in view of Lyons (Lyons; US Patent No. 11,138,870).
As per claim 12, the operation method of claim 1 as taught by Beaurepaire, Kim and Kubo, wherein, Beaurepaire teaches crossing of the pedestrian after indicating the acceptance request as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1 but fails to teach the UE transmits a PSM, during crossing, including a cross state flag related to collision risk notification.
Lyons, however, teaches UE transmits a PSM, during crossing, including a cross state flag related to collision risk notification (continuously receiving data from UE and determining whether a requesting user has completed crossing of a roadway, see e.g. col. 13, lines 17-24. Even though Lyons does not teach a cross state flag, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a flag can be set when a request to cross is inputted as known in the art).
Beaurepaire, Kim, Kubo and Lyons are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing road accidents between vehicles and pedestrians.
Claims 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire in view of Kim, Kubo, Lyons and further in view of Morotomi et al. (Morotomi; US Patent No. 8,849,558).
As per claim 13, the operation method of claim 12 as taught by Beaurepaire, Kim and Lyons, wherein the UE transmits the PSM (as discussed earlier, a flag can be set when a request to cross a roadway is submitted) but fails to explicitly teach with a cross state flag cleared when the pedestrian ends crossing.
Morotomi, however, teaches that a flag is set or reset based on whether a pedestrian is detected by a vehicle, see e.g. col. 8, lines 27-36. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a flag setting or resetting can be determined and communicated by a mobile device or UE.
Beaurepaire, Kim, Lyons and Moritomi are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings for the purpose of reducing road accidents between vehicles and pedestrians.
As per claim 15, the operation method of claim 13 as taught by Beaurepaire, Kim, Kubo, Lyons and Moritomi, wherein the UE communicates with at least one of another UE, a UE related to an autonomous driving vehicle, a base station (BS), or a network (communicating with another UE of vehicle, see e.g. FIG. 11, a network, or a base station; see e.g. para. [0107] and [0109] of Beaurepaire).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the radius setting in Beaurepaire related to movement of a pedestrian which is entirely different from the predetermined area in the claims, which is set to select vehicles to which a PSM will be transmitted. Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position.
Examiner respectfully submits that the argued selection of a vehicle with a predetermined area is taught by Kim as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1 (see e.g. para. [0032] of Kim). Examiner further submits that claimed subject matter comprises setting of the claimed area is based on a location of the pedestrian, however examiner respectfully submits that the claimed invention or the specification do not limit that the location is a static location. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed location or position can be interpreted as a static or a movable location. The disclosed systems of Beaurepaire and Kim teach that predetermine area or geofence are based on movement, in line with the interpretation. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the claims remain unpatentable in light of cited Beaurepaire and Kim and rejected as such.
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 MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights