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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al., U.S. 2020/0275243 in view of Ktahori, U.S. 2025/0061725.
On claim 1, Ueno cites except as underlined:
A warning control device comprising:
a first acquiring unit that acquires first falling-down information indicating that a falling down of a user of a user terminal is sensed in the user terminal and location information of the user;
Figures 1, 4, 9 and [0130] In the present embodiment, the pedestrian terminal 1 determines, based on a result of detection provided by the state detector 12, that the pedestrian is in a risky state when detecting a risky action taken by the pedestrian such as the pedestrian's running into or falling down in a road. More specifically, when a detection result of the acceleration sensor 25 indicates that the pedestrian has suddenly started running (sudden acceleration) or a detection result of the direction sensor 26 indicates that the pedestrian has suddenly changed direction (sudden turning), the communication method selector 22 determines that the pedestrian is running into a road. When a detection result of the acceleration sensor 25 indicates a sudden downward movement, the communication method selector 22 determines that the pedestrian is falling down.
[0162] In the pedestrian terminal 1, first, the positioning system 11 acquires position information indicating the pedestrian terminal itself (pedestrian) (ST101). Then, the message controller 21 determines whether or not the pedestrian terminal is in a state in which the pedestrian terminal is to transmit pedestrian information; specifically, whether or not the pedestrian is in a safe zone such as indoor location based on the pedestrian's position information (ST102).
and
a warning control unit that performs a control for transmitting a warning to a vehicle around the user terminal when it is determined that the user fell down on the road and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the road exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the first falling-down information, the location information of the user, and information indicating a location of a road.
[0288] The message controller 21 of a pedestrian terminal 1 generates a message for pedestrian-to-vehicle communication according to the message format for ITS communication. This message includes a common area used for storing predetermined information and a free area (extended area) in which a user can place any information. The common area includes predetermined information such as a pedestrian ID (terminal ID of a pedestrian terminal 1) and position information (longitude and latitude) of the pedestrian terminal. The free area includes information indicating whether or not a user pedestrian is a specific person (specific person information) as the pedestrian's attribute information.
[0289] This message can be used to notify nearby in-vehicle terminals 3 of the presence of a specific person. As a result, the nearby in-vehicle terminals 3 provide alerts to respective drivers, causing the drivers to be careful about the specific person.
However, Ueno doesn’t disclose the excepted claim limitations.
In the same art of pedestrian monitoring systems, Kihatori cites:
[0078] A fourth example embodiment is an improved example of the above-described second or third example embodiment. It can be said that although a person who has fallen down can be accurately detected in the above-described second example embodiment and the like, when the person who has fallen down immediately stands up, the necessary to notify the emergency system 300 is low. That is, there are cases where even when a person who has fallen down has been detected by the falling-down detection apparatus 200 or the like, the occupant (e.g., the driver or a passenger) of the vehicle 1001 cannot decide whether or not he/she should notify the emergency system 300. For example, even when there is a person who is lying down on the road, the occupant of the vehicle 1001 cannot decide whether or not he/she should report it to the emergency system 300. Alternatively, even when a person who has fallen down has been detected by the falling-down detection apparatus 200 or the like, the occupant of the vehicle 1001 may hesitate to report it to the emergency system 300 because he/she thinks that other persons may rescue the person and report it. As a result, there is a possibility that the rescue or the like to the person who has fallen down is delayed. Therefore, a falling-down detection apparatus according to the fourth example embodiment calculates a time period during which a person who has fallen down remains lying on the ground (hereinafter also referred to as falling-down continuation time period) from a plurality of images successively taken by the on-board camera, and notifies the emergency system 300 or the like when the falling-down continuation time period exceeds a predetermined time period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Ueno the pedestrian monitoring system of Kihatori such that the claimed invention is realized.
Kihatori discloses a known embodiment for determining if a fallen pedestrian has fallen due to mere tripping/stumbling or is likely suffering from a medical condition that is characteristic of a person needing medical attention and warranting the contacting of medical personnel, and to apprise the driver of the collocated vehicle that the pedestrian is on the ground, requires medical assistance, and not to run over the pedestrian.
On claim 2, Ueno and Kihatori cites:
The warning control device according to claim 1, wherein
the first acquiring unit acquires the first falling-down information and the location information of the user terminal from the user terminal,
the warning control unit performs the control for transmitting the warning to the vehicle around the user terminal when it is determined that the user terminal is on the road at a time of sensing of the falling down of the user and a period of time in which the user terminal is on the road after the sensing of the falling down of the user in the user terminal exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the first falling-down information, the location information of the user terminal, and the information indicating the location of the road. See the rejection of claim 1 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 4, Ueno and Kihatori cites:
The warning control device according to claim 2, wherein
the warning control unit performs the control for transmitting the warning to the vehicle around the user terminal when it is determined that the user terminal is on a roadway at the time of sensing of the falling down of the user and a period of time in which the user terminal is on the roadway after the sensing of the falling down of the user in the user terminal exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the first falling-down information, the location information of the user terminal, and the information indicating the location of the roadway on the road.
See the rejection of claim 1, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 5, Ueno and Kihatori cites:
The warning control device according to claim 1, wherein
the warning control unit performs the control for transmitting the warning to the vehicle around the user terminal when it is determined that the user fell down on a roadway and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the roadway exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the first falling-down information, the location information of the user, and the information indicating the location of the roadway on the road.
See the rejection of claim 1, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 15, Uemo and Kitahari cites:
The warning control device according to claim 1, wherein
the warning control unit performs a control for transmitting a warning to a vehicle existing around the location of the user terminal and moving toward the location of the user terminal at a time of sensing of the falling down of the user, based on the first falling-down information, the location information of the user, and information indicating a location of a road, when it is determined that the user fell down on the road and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the road exceeds a predetermined period of time.
See the rejection of claim 1, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 15, and is rejected for the same reasons. Furthermore, the above italicized limitations include “moving toward the location of the user terminal” continues to be met in the following manner:
Uemo cites:
[0288] The message controller 21 of a pedestrian terminal 1 generates a message for pedestrian-to-vehicle communication according to the message format for ITS communication. This message includes a common area used for storing predetermined information and a free area (extended area) in which a user can place any information. The common area includes predetermined information such as a pedestrian ID (terminal ID of a pedestrian terminal 1) and position information (longitude and latitude) of the pedestrian terminal. The free area includes information indicating whether or not a user pedestrian is a specific person (specific person information) as the pedestrian's attribute information.
Uemo’s embodiment discloses terminal 1 generating a message to a vehicle. The vehicle is traveling in the vicinity of the location of the downed pedestrian. This qualifies as the vehicle ‘moving towards the location of the user terminal.”
On claim 16, The warning control device according to claim 2, wherein
the warning control unit performs a control for transmitting a warning to a vehicle existing around the location of the user terminal and moving toward the location of the user terminal at the time of sensing of the falling down of the user, based on the first falling-down information, the location information of the user terminal, and the information indicating the location of the road, when it is determined that the user terminal is on the road at the time of sensing of the falling down of the user and a period of time in which the user terminal is on the road after the sensing of the falling down of the user in the user terminal exceeds a predetermined period of time.
See the rejection of claim 2, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 16 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 17, Uemo, Kitahari, and Odai cites:
The warning control device according to claim 3, wherein
the warning control unit performs a control for transmitting a warning to a vehicle existing around the location of the user terminal and moving toward the location of the user terminal at the time of sensing of the falling down of the user, when it is determined that the road is included within the predetermined range including a location of the user terminal at the time of sensing of the falling down of the user in the user terminal, and a period of time in which the road is included within the predetermined range including the location of the user terminal after the sensing the falling down of the user in the user terminal exceeds a predetermined period of time.
See the rejection of claim 1, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 18, Uemo and Kitahari cites:
The warning control device according to claim 4, wherein
the warning control unit performs a control for transmitting a warning to a vehicle existing around the location of the user terminal and moving toward the location of the user terminal at the time of sensing of the falling down of the user, based on the first falling-down information, the location information of the user terminal, and information indicating a location of a roadway on a road, when it is determined that the user terminal is on the roadway at the time of sensing of the falling down of the user and a period of time in which the user terminal is on the roadway after the sensing of the falling down of the user in the user terminal exceeds a predetermined period of time.
See the rejection of claim 1, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 18 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 19, Uemo and Kitahari cites:
A warning control method comprising:
acquiring first falling-down information indicating that a falling down of a user of a user terminal is sensed in the user terminal and location information of the user; and
performing a control for transmitting a warning to a vehicle around the user terminal
when it is determined that the user fell down on the road and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the road exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the first falling-down information, the location information of the user, and information indicating a location of a road.
See the rejection of claim 1, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 20, Uemo and Kitahari cites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a program stored thereon,
[0125] The controller 16 includes a message controller 21, a communication method selector 22, a collision determiner 23, and an alert controller 24. The controller 16 is comprised primarily of a processor, and each functional unit of the controller 16 is implemented by causing the processor to execute a program stored in the storage 17.
the program causes a computer to function as:
a first acquiring unit that acquires first falling-down information indicating that a falling down of a user of a user terminal is sensed in the user terminal and location information of the user; and
a warning control unit that performs a control for transmitting a warning to a vehicle around the user terminal, based on the first falling-down information, the location information of the user and information indicating a location of a road, when it is determined that the user fell down on the road and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the road exceeds a predetermined period of time.
See the rejection of claim 1, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al., U.S. 2020/0275243 in view of Kitahori, U.S. 2025/0061725 and Odai et al., U.S. 2022/0242364.
On claim 3, Ueno and Kihatori cites except as underlined:
The warning control device according to claim 2, wherein the warning control unit performs the control for transmitting the warning to the vehicle
around the user terminal when it is determined that the road is included within a predetermined range including a location of the user terminal at the time of sensing of the falling down of the user in the user terminal and a period of time in which the road is included within the predetermined range including the location of the user terminal after the sensing of the falling down of the user in the user terminal exceeds a predetermined period of time.
As disclosed above, Ueno and Kihatori cited the non-underlined claim limitations. However, neither cited the excepted claim limitations.
In the similar art of vehicles monitoring objects, Odai cites:
[0035] The object recognition device 16 recognizes a position, a kind, a speed, and the like of an object in the vicinity of the host vehicle M by performing sensor fusion processing with respect to determination results by some or all of the vehicle exterior camera 10, the radar device 12, and the LIDAR 14. Examples of an object include a different vehicle (for example, a peripheral vehicle present within a predetermined distance), a pedestrian, a bicycle, and a road structure. Examples of a road structure include a road sign, a traffic signal, a railroad crossing, a curbstone, a medial divider, a guardrail, and a fence. In addition, examples of a road structure may include a road demarcation line (which will hereinafter be referred to as a demarcation line) and a crosswalk which are painted or adhered on a road surface, and a road surface sign such as a bicycle crossing lane or a stop sign line. In addition, an object may include an obstacle such as a fallen object on a road (for example, a load of a different vehicle or a signboard installed in the vicinity of a road).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Ueno and Kihatori the embodiment disclosed in Odai such that the claimed invention is realized. Odai discloses a known embodiment which tracks objects collocated to a monitoring vehicle within a predetermined range. One of ordinary skill would have included such a feature to allow the monitoring vehicle to track and consider objects relevant and meaningful to the driver of the monitoring vehicle.
Claims 6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al., U.S. 2020/0275243 in view of Kihatori, U.S. 2025/0061725 and Lepp et al., U.S. 2021/0304592.
On claim 6, Ueno and Kihatori cites except as underlined:
The warning control device according to claim 4, further comprising:
a second acquiring unit that acquires a history of location information of a plurality of vehicles; and
a roadway information generating unit that generates information indicating the location of the roadway based on the history of the location information of the plurality of vehicles.
Ueno and Kihatori do not disclose the excepted claim limitations. In the related art of incident data collection, Lepp, figure 2 and [0055] discloses:
[0055] The data of BSMs sent by a vehicle in a time interval before the accident can provide information relating to the state of the vehicle right before the accident. The data of BSMs received by the vehicle in the time interval before the accident can provide information relating to states of other vehicles proximate the vehicle. Using data of BSMs received from multiple vehicles with their respective timestamps, a dynamic map of the states of the multiple vehicles can be created, including positions, headings, speeds, accelerations, etc., of the multiple vehicles right before the accident. For example, a path history for each vehicle in the vicinity of the accident on a roadway can be determined from the BSM data, and can be used to understand the conditions leading up to the accident
In short, Lepp’s embodiment includes a feature of triggering the dissemination of information to a vehicle after the vehicle is involved in accidents collocated to the vehicle’s accident.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Ueno and Kihatori the features disclosed in Lepp such that the claimed invention is realized. One of ordinary skill would have included Lepp’s feature into Ueno and Kihatori as a way to determine if the present accident or incident is related to other prior accidents and anything that might involves problems with this particular location of the road.
On claim 7, Ueno, Kihatori and Lepp cites:
The warning control device according to claim 1, further comprising
a third acquiring unit that acquires information indicating a history of the location information of the user and a location at which the user fell down, which is detected by analyzing an image captured by an image capturing apparatus provided around the road,
[0043] As described above, the falling-down detection apparatus 1 according to this example embodiment detects skeletal points of a person present near the vehicle by analyzing an image taken by the on-board camera, and by doing so, detects the posture of the person. Therefore, the falling-down detection apparatus 1 can specify a positional relationship of a part of the body of the person on the road, for example, coordinate information of each part of the body in a 3D (three-dimensional) space. Further, the falling-down detection apparatus 1 can specify coordinate information of the road area, i.e., the ground, in the 3D space by analyzing the same photographed image. Since the falling-down detection apparatus 1 can recognize the positional relationship between the skeletal points and the road area, it can accurately determine whether or not the person is lying down on the road and thereby can accurately detect the person who has fallen down.
wherein the warning control unit further performs a control for transmitting a warning to a vehicle around the user when it is determined that the location at which the user fell down is on the road and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the road exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the information acquired by the third acquiring unit and the information indicating the location of the road.
See the rejection of claim 6, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 8, Uemo, Kihatori, and Lepp cites:
The warning control device according to claim 5, further comprising:
a second acquiring unit that acquires a history of location information of a plurality of vehicles; and
a roadway information generating unit that generates information indicating the location of the roadway based on the history of the location information of the plurality of vehicles.
See the rejection of claim 6, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 9, Uemo, Kihatori, and Lepp cites except as underlined:
The warning control device according to claim 2, further comprising
a third acquiring unit that acquires information indicating a history of the location information of the user and a location at which the user fell down, which is detected by analyzing an image captured by an image capturing apparatus provided around the road,
[0043] As described above, the falling-down detection apparatus 1 according to this example embodiment detects skeletal points of a person present near the vehicle by analyzing an image taken by the on-board camera, and by doing so, detects the posture of the person. Therefore, the falling-down detection apparatus 1 can specify a positional relationship of a part of the body of the person on the road, for example, coordinate information of each part of the body in a 3D (three-dimensional) space. Further, the falling-down detection apparatus 1 can specify coordinate information of the road area, i.e., the ground, in the 3D space by analyzing the same photographed image. Since the falling-down detection apparatus 1 can recognize the positional relationship between the skeletal points and the road area, it can accurately determine whether or not the person is lying down on the road and thereby can accurately detect the person who has fallen down.
wherein the warning control unit further performs the control for transmitting the warning to the vehicle around the user when it is determined that the location at which the user fell down is on the road and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the road exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the information acquired by the third acquiring unit and the information indicating the location of the road.
See the rejection of claim 6, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding the excepted: further comprising a third acquiring unit that acquires information indicating a history of the location information of the user, Lepp, figure 2 and [0055] discloses:
[0055] The data of BSMs sent by a vehicle in a time interval before the accident can provide information relating to the state of the vehicle right before the accident. The data of BSMs received by the vehicle in the time interval before the accident can provide information relating to states of other vehicles proximate the vehicle. Using data of BSMs received from multiple vehicles with their respective timestamps, a dynamic map of the states of the multiple vehicles can be created, including positions, headings, speeds, accelerations, etc., of the multiple vehicles right before the accident. For example, a path history for each vehicle in the vicinity of the accident on a roadway can be determined from the BSM data, and can be used to understand the conditions leading up to the accident
Lepp doesn’t specifically disclose “a history of the location information of the user” related to the location in question. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an embodiment meeting the claimed limitations. Lepp clearly discloses an embodiment in which accident data related to a particular location is determined and recorded for later recall. It stands to reason that if all accidents are recorded at that location, any information related to the user that coincides with the user would also appear in the information recall. One of ordinary skill, apprised of the operation of Lepp’s embodiment, would include the feature of including the user’s history if the user previously had issues recorded at this location.
On claim 11, Uemo, Kihatori, and Lepp cites:
The warning control device according to claim 4, further comprising
a third acquiring unit that acquires information indicating a history of the location information of the user and a location at which the user fell down, which is detected by analyzing an image captured by an image capturing apparatus provided around the road, wherein the warning control unit further performs the control for transmitting the warning to the vehicle around the user when it is determined that the location at which the user fell down is on the road and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the road exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the information acquired by the third acquiring unit and the information indicating the location of the road.
See the rejection of claim 7, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al., U.S. 2020/0275243 in view of Ktahori, U.S. 2025/0061725 and Odai et al., U.S. 2022/0242364 and Lepp et al., U.S. 2021/0304592.
On claim 10, Ueno cites except as underlined:
The warning control device according to claim 3, further comprising
a third acquiring unit that acquires information indicating a history of the location information of the user and a location at which the user fell down, which is detected by analyzing an image captured by an image capturing apparatus provided around the road, wherein
the warning control unit further performs the control for transmitting the warning to the vehicle around the user when it is determined that the location at which the user fell down is on the road and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the road exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the information acquired by the third acquiring unit and the information indicating the location of the road.
See the rejection of claim 9, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 12, Uemo, Kihatori, and Lepp cites:
The warning control device according to claim 5, further comprising
a third acquiring unit that acquires information indicating a history of the location information of the user and a location at which the user fell down, which is detected by analyzing an image captured by an image capturing apparatus provided around the road, wherein the warning control unit further performs the control for transmitting the warning to the vehicle around the user when it is determined that the location at which the user fell down is on the road and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the road exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the information acquired by the third acquiring unit and the information indicating the location of the road.
See the rejection of claim 9, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 13,
The warning control device according to claim 6, further comprising
a third acquiring unit that acquires information indicating a history of the location information of the user and a location at which the user fell down, which is detected by analyzing an image captured by an image capturing apparatus provided around the road, wherein the warning control unit further performs control for transmitting the warning to the vehicle around the user when it is determined that the location at which the user fell down is on the road and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the road exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the information acquired by the third acquiring unit and the information indicating the location of the road.
See the rejection of claim 9, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 14, Uemo, Kihatori, and Lepp cites:
The warning control device according to claim 8, further comprising
a third acquiring unit that acquires information indicating a history of the location information of the user and a location at which the user fell down, which is detected by analyzing an image captured by an image capturing apparatus provided around the road, wherein the warning control unit further performs the control for transmitting the warning to the vehicle around the user when it is determined that the location at which the user fell down is on the road and a period of time in which the user is stopped on the road exceeds a predetermined period of time based on the information acquired by the third acquiring unit and the information indicating the location of the road.
See the rejection of claim 9, which discloses the same subject matter as claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAL EUSTAQUIO whose telephone number is (571)270-7229. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Zimmerman, can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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 lnformation 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 PAlR only. For more information about the PAlR system, see http:/lpair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAlR 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 800-786-91 99 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAL J EUSTAQUIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights