DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed December 8, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 5 have been amended. Claim 8 is presently canceled. The remaining claims are in original form. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are pending in the application. Claim 1 is the only independent claims.
The Remarks filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered. The examiner withdraws the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claim 6 made in the last detailed action, which was the Non-Final Rejection dated September 10, 2025, based on the amendment. The amendment to claim 6 now uses the equation found in paragraphs 0028 and 0041 of the present published disclosure, Zhou et al. (US2025/0026338).
The examiner withdraws the written description rejection of claim 8 based on the applicant’s explanation in the Remarks.
Please see the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding the amending of claim 1 to replace a “trend prediction” with the “tendency prediction,” the examiner prefers that a “trend prediction” be kept since this was the language originally used. “Tendency prediction” lacks written description and is new matter. In a broad reasonable interpretation, a pedestrian could be wearing a smart watch that provides V2P data to the host vehicle informing the vehicle of the pedestrians path over time, thus forming a “trend”. The host vehicle could then predict, that the pedestrian is going to cross the crosswalk. Therefore, the system could make a “trend prediction”. As indicated in the 35 USC 112(b) section of the last detailed action, paragraphs 0020-0022 indicate some relationship between a trend prediction and the “tendency” of a pedestrian. But the examiner does not wish to introduce the new phrase of “tendency prediction” into the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The examiner notes that the applicant has added the phrase “that is used” in claim 6, as recommended by the examiner in the last detailed action. But claim 1 now has the same problem as claim 6 previously had, which was that the claim was disconnected in its parts.
Claim 1 now recites that the system can make a trend prediction that a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, and then make “a judgement,” and then the system can control the vehicle “based on a result of the judgment”. But then the claim recites that “a judgement formula is:” But what is the relationship between “the judgement” and “a judgement formula”? There isn’t one definitely stated in the claim; the two are very disconnected. It might be implied that the judgement is based on the judgement formula, but that is not stated. Rather, claim 1 really just recites two disconnected segments.
Furthermore, even the first segment of claim 1 is disconnected from itself. While the trend prediction is “based on V2X recognition” and therefore connected to the earlier clause that discusses V2X, the “a judgement” is not connected to the trend prediction.
It seems that solution might be to recite something like adding the phrases shown here in brackets: “making a judgment [based on the prediction]” and, “and [the judgement is made using] a judgement formula [which] is:” For examination purposes, that is how claim 1 will be interpreted.
Claim 6 has an antecedent basis issue in reciting “a pedestrian or surrounding object,” which was already recited in claim 1. Claim 6 will be interpreted as “the” instead of “a” in the phrase “a pedestrian or surrounding object”.
Claim 6 recites “an early warning,” “a system early alarming” and “the early alarming” and “the early alarming”. Is “an early warning” the same as “a system early alarming”? If so it should be written that way. For examination purposes, all these terms will be considered as an “early alarming.”
Claim 6 does not establish a connection between the “by mild braking” and stopping “under a mild braking condition”. For examination purposes, the phrase “under a mild braking condition” will be interpreted as “by mild braking” and the phrase “vehicle to decelerate to stop is:” Will be interpreted as: “vehicle to decelerate to stop [by mild braking] is:”
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Goto et al. (US2024/0182005), teaches in at least Fig. 2 attached below a system for stopping a vehicle by mild or hard braking to avoid a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
PNG
media_image1.png
638
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights