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
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Claims 6, 8, 17, and 19 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-16, and 18 are presented as original claims.
No claims are newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below 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 from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to 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. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on November 20, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2023-0161397 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
It is made of record that a “Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application” was filled on April 6, 2026 but that the certified copy has not been filed in the Application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US RE38870 E) in view of Lee (KR 102471234 B1) in view of Cho et al. (US 11355006 B1) (the combination of which will be referred to as 'combination Hall' hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches a crosswalk safety system comprising:
a sensor device configured to obtain information related to a speed of a vehicle approaching a crosswalk through a roadway and a separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk; (Hall: ¶ 020; Col. 4, Lns. 20-23; independently monitor each lane of traffic with speed detection devices that have a direct line-of-sight to approaching vehicles.) (Hall: Fig. 003) a first warning device configured to issue a first warning to the vehicle in response that the speed obtained through the sensor device is equal to or greater than a first reference speed and the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is a first separation distance; (Hall: ¶ 049; Cols. 15, Lns. 52-55; Authorities can limit and enforce a maximum vehicle speed, even in the absence of a pedestrian. This is accomplished by setting the Controller 10 to also respond to Conditional Control 40 sensors 40a for speed control) (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 21-34; Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. . . . Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection) (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 32-34; ground-mounted induction loop) a second warning device configured to issue a second warning to the vehicle in response that the speed obtained through the sensor device is equal to or greater than a second reference speed (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 17-25, 31-34; Additional reinforcement is provided when the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. The system can also activate an alarm 70c directed at the pedestrian to alert him to his impending collision with the vehicle . . . Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection such as one or more ultrasonic sensors. (A ground-mounted induction loop would also suffice.)) (Hall: ¶ 022; Cols. 10, Lns. 12-28; authorities can set the threshold of the Trigger Sensors 30 required to invoke a system response, set the degree of activation response for Vehicle Restrictors 20, set the threshold and duration of camera response, or change the System Status Alarm 70 message for visual display . . . These parameters are unique to a particular implementation and they are the levels that a monitored object has to reach before a certain system response is invoked or changed) (Hall: ¶ 027; Cols. 11, Lns. 4-6; Trigger Sensors 30a, 30b, 30c in FIG. 2 are speed detection sensors such as the radar or laser device) and the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is a second separation distance after issuing the first warning; (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 17-25, 31-34; As the pedestrian and the vehicle advanced toward the same intersection, the Trigger Sensor 30a notifies the Controller 10 to activate the Vehicle Restrictors 20, to provide an indication to the operator to slow down. Additional reinforcement is provided when the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. The system can also activate an alarm 70c directed at the pedestrian to alert him to his impending collision with the vehicle . . . Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection such as one or more ultrasonic sensors. (A ground-mounted induction loop would also suffice.)) . . . a controller electrically connected to the sensor device, the first warning device, the second warning device, and the robot to control operations of the first warning device, the second warning device, and the robot. (Hall: ¶ 007; Col. 6, Lns. 34-39; Controller 10 hardware is an industrial grad computer having a conventional microprocessor and computer readable memory that is used to provide control for the Collision Avoidance System based upon input from sensors and operational settings. The Controller 10 then executes the control logic to activate the appropriate outputs)
Hall does not explicitly teach: a robot arranged to move between the vehicle and a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk; however, Lee does teach:
a robot arranged to move between the vehicle and a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk (Lee: ¶ 064; drivable area P represents a range in which the safe companion robot 100a can drive, and preferably may be a rectangular area having vehicle stop lines 300a and 300b of both lanes as rims.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “helping a pedestrian at a crosswalk [avoid] a collision with a vehicle in advance by accompanying the pedestrian to safely pass at the crosswalk" (Lee: ¶ 007) in a way that easily merges with the multi-step warning process that Hall teaches.
Hall does not explicitly teach: in response that the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk obtained through the sensor device is less than or equal to a third separation distance after issuing the second warning; and; however, Cho does teach:
in response that the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk obtained through the sensor device is less than or equal to a third separation distance after issuing the second warning; and (Cho: ¶ 053; Col. 9, Lns. 54-61; When the electronic device 110 identifies that a distance between the vehicle 120 and the crosswalk is less than or equal to a first distance d1, or the traffic light turns on in green, the electronic device 110 may then provide a signal requesting the first indicator 400 to form the screen wall.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cho with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "notifying the pedestrians of approaching vehicles or a method of controlling the speed of the vehicle approaching the crosswalk" (Cho: ¶ 004; Col. 1, Lns 30-35).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Hall further teaches:
wherein the sensor device includes a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensor. (Hall: ¶ 009; Col. 7, Lns. 4; speed detection (radar, laser))
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Hall further teaches:
further including: a traffic light arranged in an external direction of the crosswalk to transmit a traffic signal to vehicles in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway is the external direction, (Hall: Fig. 003; [[40a]]) wherein the sensor device is coupled to the traffic light. (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 29-31; Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection)
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Hall further teaches:
wherein the traffic light includes a plurality of traffic lights, each of which is arranged adjacent to an end portion of the crosswalk in an extension direction in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk extends is the extension direction, (Hall: Fig. 005; [[30a]]) wherein the sensor device is coupled to each of the traffic lights, and wherein the controller is coupled to at least one of the plurality of traffic lights. (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 18-25; Trigger Sensor 30a notifies the Controller 10 to activate the Vehicle Restrictors 20, to provide an indication to the operator to slow down. Additional reinforcement is provided when the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. The system can also activate an alarm 70c directed at the pedestrian to alert him to his impending collision with the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Hall further teaches:
wherein the first warning device includes a light source member that emits light to provide the first warning to the vehicle. (Hall: Fig. 003; [[40a]]) (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 18-25; Trigger Sensor 30a notifies the Controller 10 to activate the Vehicle Restrictors 20, to provide an indication to the operator to slow down. Additional reinforcement is provided when the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. The system can also activate an alarm 70c directed at the pedestrian to alert him to his impending collision with the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 5. Cho further teaches:
wherein the light source member includes a plurality of light source members arranged along an extension direction in an external direction of the crosswalk in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway is the external direction and a direction in which the crosswalk extends is the extension direction. (Cho: ¶ 055; Cols. 10, Lns. 24-25; may control the indicator 500 to display at least some of the LEDs 502 in green) (Cho: Fig. 002)
Regarding claim 18, Hall teaches a method of controlling a crosswalk safety system, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a controller, (Hall: ¶ 007; Col. 6, Lns. 34-39; Controller 10 hardware is an industrial grad computer having a conventional microprocessor and computer readable memory that is used to provide control for the Collision Avoidance System based upon input from sensors and operational settings. The Controller 10 then executes the control logic to activate the appropriate outputs) information related to a speed of a vehicle approaching a crosswalk through a roadway and a separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk; (Hall: ¶ 020; Col. 4, Lns. 20-23; independently monitor each lane of traffic with speed detection devices that have a direct line-of-sight to approaching vehicles.) issuing, by the controller, a first warning to the vehicle in response that the speed of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a first reference speed and the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is a first separation distance; (Hall: ¶ 049; Cols. 15, Lns. 52-55; Authorities can limit and enforce a maximum vehicle speed, even in the absence of a pedestrian. This is accomplished by setting the Controller 10 to also respond to Conditional Control 40 sensors 40a for speed control) (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 21-34; Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. . . . Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection) (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 32-34; ground-mounted induction loop)
issuing, by the controller, a second warning to the vehicle in response that the speed of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a second reference speed lower than the first reference speed (Hall: ¶ 022; Cols. 10, Lns. 12-28; authorities can set the threshold of the Trigger Sensors 30 required to invoke a system response, set the degree of activation response for Vehicle Restrictors 20, set the threshold and duration of camera response, or change the System Status Alarm 70 message for visual display . . . These parameters are unique to a particular implementation and they are the levels that a monitored object has to reach before a certain system response is invoked or changed) (Hall: ¶ 027; Cols. 11, Lns. 4-6; Trigger Sensors 30a, 30b, 30c in FIG. 2 are speed detection sensors such as the radar or laser device) and the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is a second separation distance shorter than the first separation distance after issuing the first warning; and (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 17-25, 31-34; As the pedestrian and the vehicle advanced toward the same intersection, the Trigger Sensor 30a notifies the Controller 10 to activate the Vehicle Restrictors 20, to provide an indication to the operator to slow down. Additional reinforcement is provided when the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence. The system can also activate an alarm 70c directed at the pedestrian to alert him to his impending collision with the vehicle . . . Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection such as one or more ultrasonic sensors. (A ground-mounted induction loop would also suffice.))
Hall does not explicitly teach: controlling, by the controller, a robot of the crosswalk safety system, to move between the vehicle and a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk; however, Lee does teach:
controlling, by the controller, a robot of the crosswalk safety system, to move between the vehicle and a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk◄ (Lee: ¶ 064; drivable area P represents a range in which the safe companion robot 100a can drive, and preferably may be a rectangular area having vehicle stop lines 300a and 300b of both lanes as rims.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “helping a pedestrian at a crosswalk [avoid] a collision with a vehicle in advance by accompanying the pedestrian to safely pass at the crosswalk" (Lee: ¶ 007) in a way that easily merges with the multi-step warning process that Hall teaches.
Hall does not explicitly teach: in response that the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is less than or equal to a third separation distance shorter than the second separation distance after issuing the second warning.; however, Cho does teach:
in response that the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is less than or equal to a third separation distance shorter than the second separation distance after issuing the second warning. (Cho: ¶ 053; Col. 9, Lns. 54-61; When the electronic device 110 identifies that a distance between the vehicle 120 and the crosswalk is less than or equal to a first distance d1, or the traffic light turns on in green, the electronic device 110 may then provide a signal requesting the first indicator 400 to form the screen wall.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cho with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "notifying the pedestrians of approaching vehicles or a method of controlling the speed of the vehicle approaching the crosswalk" (Cho: ¶ 004; Col. 1, Lns 30-35).
Regarding claim 19, as detailed above, combination Hall teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 18. Lee further teaches:
further including: controlling, by the controller, the robot to move along a movement direction of the pedestrian in an external direction of the pedestrian in a state that the pedestrian enters the crosswalk (Lee: ¶ 064; drivable area P represents a range in which the safe companion robot 100a can drive, and preferably may be a rectangular area having vehicle stop lines 300a and 300b of both lanes as rims.) (Lee: Fig. 001; [[showing robot operating between crosswalk and vehicle driving area]])
And Hall further teaches: and the second warning is not issued, wherein the external direction is a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway... (Hall: ¶ 069; Cols. 19, Lns. 41-45; If some incident occurs downstream from the Collision Avoidance area that eventually causes the traffic to slow below a predetermined threshold then the system will automatically adjust the merging-lane traffic light 70d as the System Status Alarm 70 and the Vehicle Restrictor 20 accordingly)
Claims 7-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Hall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20220146985 A).
Regarding claim 7, Hall does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second warning device includes a bollard member that is configured to protrude upwards from a ground.; however, Kim does teach:
wherein the second warning device includes a bollard member that is configured to protrude upwards from a ground. (Kim: ¶ 001; an AUTO safety fence structure that can be installed on both sides of a crosswalk. This AUTO safety fence is usually buried in the underground space, but when the pedestrian traffic light is turned on, it automatically rises to the ground and blocks both sides of the crosswalk like a barrier.) (Kim: ¶ 006; high-pressure steel pillar in the following figure.2 is a circular rod with a diameter of 60cm (2EA on one side, 4EA on the left and right fences) . . . safety fence can be driven by an electronic sensitive sensor power transmission program. In other words, by adopting a device and circuit diagram compatible with the electronic circuit of a walking traffic light, when a green walking signal is emitted, the interlocked electronic sensitive precision sensor operates)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “ensure safe walking of socially vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly who are slow to walk from drunk driving or speeding vehicle" (Kim: ¶ 001).
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Kim teaches:
wherein the bollard member includes a plurality of bollard members arranged along an extension direction in an external direction of the crosswalk in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway is the external direction and a direction in which the crosswalk extends is the extension direction, (Kim: ¶ 001; an AUTO safety fence structure that can be installed on both sides of a crosswalk. This AUTO safety fence is usually buried in the underground space, but when the pedestrian traffic light is turned on, it automatically rises to the ground and blocks both sides of the crosswalk like a barrier.)
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 8. Kim teaches:
wherein the first warning device includes a light source member that emits light to issue the first warning to the vehicle, (Cho: ¶ 055; Cols. 10, Lns. 24-25; may control the indicator 500 to display at least some of the LEDs 502 in green) wherein the light source member includes a plurality of light source member arranged along the extension direction in the external direction of the crosswalk, and (Cho: Fig. 002)
And Kim teaches: wherein the bollard member is arranged in the external direction of the light source member. (Kim: ¶ 001; an AUTO safety fence structure that can be installed on both sides of a crosswalk. This AUTO safety fence is usually buried in the underground space, but when the pedestrian traffic light is turned on, it automatically rises to the ground and blocks both sides of the crosswalk like a barrier.)
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Hall teaches:
further including: a traffic light installed in an external direction of the crosswalk to transmit a traffic signal to vehicles, wherein the traffic light is arranged in the external direction of the bollard member. (Hall: Fig. 003; [[40a][20a]])
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 9. Lee teaches:
wherein the robot is arranged in a robot movement area which is defined between the crosswalk and the light source member. (Lee: ¶ 064; drivable area P represents a range in which the safe companion robot 100a can drive, and preferably may be a rectangular area having vehicle stop lines 300a and 300b of both lanes as rims.) (Lee: Fig. 001; [[showing robot operating between crosswalk and vehicle driving area]])
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 16. Lee teaches:
wherein the robot moves along a movement direction of the pedestrian in the external direction of the pedestrian in a state that the pedestrian enters the crosswalk (Lee: ¶ 064; drivable area P represents a range in which the safe companion robot 100a can drive, and preferably may be a rectangular area having vehicle stop lines 300a and 300b of both lanes as rims.) (Lee: Fig. 001; [[showing robot operating between crosswalk and vehicle driving area]]) and the second warning is not issued, wherein the external direction is a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway (Hall: ¶ 069; Cols. 19, Lns. 41-45; If some incident occurs downstream from the Collision Avoidance area that eventually causes the traffic to slow below a predetermined threshold then the system will automatically adjust the merging-lane traffic light 70d as the System Status Alarm 70 and the Vehicle Restrictor 20 accordingly)
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Hall in view of Kim as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Steinmann (CH 644418 A5).
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Hall does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second warning device includes: a rack connected to a lower side of the bollard member; a pinion engaged with the rack to move the rack up or down as the pinion rotates; and a motor operatively connected to the controller and connected to the pinion and configured to rotate the pinion.; however, Steinmann does teach:
wherein the second warning device includes: a rack connected to a lower side of the bollard member; a pinion engaged with the rack to move the rack up or down as the pinion rotates; and a motor operatively connected to the controller and connected to the pinion and configured to rotate the pinion. (Steinmann: Clm. 004; Barrier device according to claim 1, characterized in that an electric motor (13) with self-locking gearbox (14) is provided for extending and retracting the barrier post, which is mounted on the bearing frame (6) and connected to the barrier post (9) via a chain, belt or rack drive).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Steinmann with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of a bollard that "operates reliably and has a structurally simple, cost-effective design." (Steinmann: ¶ 007).
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim in view of Steinmann teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Steinmann teaches:
wherein the second warning device further includes a stopper that protrudes from a lower end portion of the rack toward the pinion so that the stopper limits movement of the rack within a predetermined distance. (Steinmann: ¶ 035; To retract and extend the barrier post 9, an electric motor 13 with a self-locking gear 14 is provided,)
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim in view of Steinmann teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Steinmann teaches:
wherein the stopper selectively engages with the pinion to prevent the rotation of the pinion. (Steinmann: ¶ 025; To retract and extend the barrier post 9, an electric motor 13 with a self-locking gear 14 is provided,)
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim in view of Steinmann teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Steinmann teaches:
wherein the rack includes a guide hole extending in a longitudinal direction of the rack, and wherein the second warning device further includes a guide inserted into the guide hole to guide a vertical movement of the rack. (Steinmann: ¶ 014; barrier device with a retractable barrier post which is guided longitudinally and is releasably locked at least in its effective position, characterized in that the barrier post (9) is supported in two ways for its longitudinal guidance by means of rollers) (Steinmann: ¶ 006; At the bottom of the locking body, guide pins are arranged on its outer side, which run in longitudinal grooves of the guide tube.)
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Hall in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Hall does not explicitly teach:
wherein a surface of the bollard member in an external direction includes a curved area which is convex or concave toward the external direction in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway is the external direction.; however, Steinmann does teach:
wherein a surface of the bollard member in an external direction includes a curved area which is convex or concave toward the external direction in a state that a direction in which the crosswalk faces the roadway is the external direction. (Steinmann: ¶ 023; barrier post could also have a round profile. In this case, profile rollers adapted to the curvature of the post would be appropriately used.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Steinmann with the teachings of Hall because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of a bollard that "operates reliably and has a structurally simple, cost-effective design." (Steinmann: ¶ 007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied objection to claims 6 and 8 is persuasive and the objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is not persuasive. Applicant first argues that:
Hall fails to disclose a sensor device configured to obtain information related to a separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk, as is presently claimed. The Examiner has taken the position that the trigger sensor 30 of Hall may correspond to the sensor device of the presently claimed invention. See Office Action, page 4. Applicant respectfully disagrees because the trigger sensor 30 of Hall is a general sensor for detecting a speed, presence, and the like of a vehicle. See Hall, Col. 6, lines 54-66 . . . (Applicant’s Arguments filed April 6, 2026, pgs. 8-9).
Hall teaches a ground-mounted induction loop (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 32-34) and trigger sensors (Hall: [30]), a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both of these provide a distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk as claimed. The nature of a physical switch or ground induction loop would always provide the distance at which the vehicle is from the crosswalk and a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that distance could be correlated with the speed of the vehicle and be used to determine the risk a vehicle poses to a person in the crosswalk because the very purpose of Hall’s invention is to determine the risk a vehicle poses to a pedestrian and the vehicle distance from the pedestrian is key to that determination. Applicant next argues that:
Hall fails to disclose a first warning device configured to issue a first warning to the vehicle in response that the speed obtained through the sensor device is equal to or greater than a first reference speed and the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is a first separation distance, as is presently claimed. The Examiner has taken the position that the display 70b of Hall may correspond to the first warning device of the presently claimed invention. See Office Action, page 5. Applicant respectfully disagrees because the display 70b of Hall is configured to be turned on based on a pedestrian. In detail, Hall merely discloses that the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence and activate an alarm 70c directed at the pedestrian to alert him to his impending collision with the vehicle. See Hall, Cols. 15, lines 17-25, (Applicant’s Arguments filed April 6, 2026, pg. 9).
Examiner disagrees and points to Hall teaching that “authorities can set the threshold of the Trigger Sensors 30 required to invoke a system response, set the degree of activation response for Vehicle Restrictors 20, set the threshold and duration of camera response, or change the System Status Alarm 70 message for visual displays” (Hall: ¶ 022; Cols. 10, Lns. 13-18) and that “the Controller 10 illuminates a System Status Alarm 70 display 70b in direct view of the driver, to inform of the pedestrian's presence” (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 15, Lns. 22-23) wherein “Controller 10 adjusts the operation of the entire Collision Avoidance System accordingly by updating the speed limit display for the motorists and then deploying the Vehicle Restrictors 20a, 20b, 20c based on the new speed limit” (Hall: ¶ 047; Cols. 11, Lns. 55-59). In other words, Hall teaches that the controller [10] can be adjusted to trigger any number of possible outputs based on any number of possible speed inputs based upon the intent of the police or the traffic planning authority. Hall does not teach merely responding solely to the presence of pedestrians.“
A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” MPEP § 2141.03 (quoting: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Here a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, to the extent it is not explicitly taught, that the speed triggers used throughout the invention could be applied to the pedestrian signaling system. Applicant further argues that:
Hall fails to disclose a second warning device configured to issue a second warning to the vehicle in response that the speed obtained through the sensor device is equal to or greater than a second reference speed and the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is a second separation distance after issuing the first warning, as is presently claimed. The Examiner has taken the position that the alarm 70 of Hall may correspond to the second warning device of the presently claimed invention. See Office Action, page 6. Applicant respectfully disagrees because the alarm 70 and the control of the vehicle restrictor 20 for reducing speed in Hall are controlled based on 'conditions such as the pedestrian and the vehicle being in the same intersection. See Hall, Cols. 15, lines 17-25, as recited above. In detail, the Conditional Control 40 is provided by a sensor 40a that is used to detect the presence of a vehicle traveling in the direction of the intersection and the Conditional Control 40 sensor 40a will only allow the Controller 10 to activate the Vehicle Restrictors 20 and the System Status Alarm 70 components (70b, 70c) if there is a vehicle traveling toward the intersection, thus preventing unnecessary system activation. See id. See Hall, Cols. 15, lines 17-25, (Applicant’s Arguments filed April 6, 2026, pgs. 10-11).
Hall Fig. 2 teaches a highway speed warning embodiment that does not require a pedestrian present in order to (1) “measure the speed of each vehicle in a lane of traffic and independently adjust the height of each Vehicle Restrictor 20a, 20b, 20c relative to the degree of excessive speed.” (Hall: ¶ 028; Cols. 11, Lns. 16-20) or (2) “electronic speed limit displays 70a in advance of and within the Collision Avoidance System environment” (Hall: ¶ 030; Cols. 11, Lns. 50-53). Consequently, Hall does teach a second warning device (the vehicle restrictor) configured to issue a second warning to the vehicle in response that the speed obtained through the sensor device is equal to or greater than a second reference speed and the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk is a second separation distance after issuing the first warning (Hall: ¶ 022; Cols. 10, Lns. 13-18).
Applicant further argues that:
Finally, as acknowledged by the Examiner, Hall fails to disclose a robot arranged to move between the vehicle and a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk in response that the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk obtained through the sensor device is less than or equal to a third separation distance after issuing the second warning, as is presently claimed. See Office Action, page 8. Cho does not account for deficiencies of Hall. The Examiner has taken the position that Col. 9, lines 54-61 of Cho may disclose such features. Applicant respectfully disagrees because Cho merely discloses controlling the first indicator 400 to form the screen wall . . . Lee, Kim, and Steinmann fail to account for these deficiencies of Hall and Cho because the Examiner cites only Hall and Cho, to support such features. See Office Action, pages 8-9. In contrast, Applicant's independent claims 1 and 18 call for i) a sensor device configured to obtain information related to a speed of a vehicle approaching a crosswalk through a roadway and a separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk, (Applicant’s Arguments filed April 6, 2026, pgs. 11-12).
In response to applicant's arguments against Cho individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, Examiner points to the Office Action dated Jan. 5, 2026, pgs. 7-8 wherein Lee (KR 102471234 B1) ¶ 064 is cited as teaching a “drivable area P represents a range in which the safe companion robot 100a can drive.” Lee: Fig. 3 illustrates:
PNG
media_image1.png
393
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The portion of Cho cited at ¶ 053 is only relied upon to teach the instant application’s claimed limitation “that the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk obtained through the sensor device is less than or equal to a third separation distance after issuing the second warning” because Cho teaches the laser separation wall is triggered based upon a distance from a vehicle to the crosswalk (Cho: ¶ 053; Col. 9, Lns. 54-61; device 110 identifies that a distance between the vehicle 120 and the crosswalk is less than or equal to a first distance) as later acknowledge as key by Applicant reiterating that the claims require “the sensor device 10 of the present invention performs a specific purpose of detecting a separation distance between a vehicle and a crosswalk” (Applicant’s Arguments filed April 6, 2026, pgs. 12) (emphasis added)). Applicant finally argues that:
a robot is arranged to move between the vehicle and a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk if the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk obtained through the sensor device is less than or equal to a third separation distance after issuing the second warning. In this configuration, the first warning device 20, the second warning device 30, and the robot 40 perform a first warning, a second warning, and a movement of the robot, respectively, based on a single parameter, i.e., first, second, and third separation distances between the vehicle and the crosswalk, in a three-stage sequential control of issuing a first warning, issuing a second warning, and controlling movement of the robot, based on a single parameter, namely the separation distance between the vehicle and the crosswalk. (Applicant’s Arguments filed April 6, 2026, pgs. 10-11).
Examiner disagrees because Cho teaches the limitation of measuring a distance between a vehicle and the crosswalk while Hall teaches observing speed at two other distances, in particular to (1) adjust the height of each Vehicle Restrictor and (2) trigger electronic speed limit displays. The combination teaches 3 discrete distances at which three discrete warnings occur. There is no teaching or suggesting, nor would a person of ordinary skill in the art be required, taught, or suggested to make Cho’s vehicle-crosswalk speed observation point identical to Hall’s two distances. In fact, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged to make the distances be identical because Hall teaches a fixed distance with a loop sensor, not a real-time changing distance like Cho. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught three distances as claimed by the instant application claims.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Uçar (US 20210209943 A1) which discloses a robot assembled crosswalk.
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 CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights