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 1 thru 20 have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In P[0085], the term “floppy” is indicated as a “registered trademark”. This term is not a registered trademark and the designation should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, the word "another" should be "an other". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, the phrase "the another" should be "the other". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4 and in lines 6 and 7, the phrase "the another" should be "the other". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, the phrase "the another" should be "the other". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4 and in lines 6 and 7, the phrase "the another" should be "the other". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8, the word "another" should be "an other". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10, the word "another" should be "an other". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an acquiring unit which acquires, an identifying unit which identifies, and an assistance controlling unit which performs in claims 1 and 20; a determining unit which determines in claims 4, 11 and 12; and an interpersonal relationship information acquiring unit which acquires in claims 5, 7, 13, 14, 16 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The claimed “units” are interpreted as part of the assistance controlling apparatus 200 (Figure 3), and “The assistance controlling apparatus 200 is implemented by including, for example, a circuit such as an arithmetic processing apparatus including a processor. The assistance controlling apparatus 200 may be implemented by a microcomputer including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, an I/O, a bus, and the like.” (PGPub P[0032]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6 and 9 thru 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “a history of position information of the plurality of user terminals” in lines 4 and 5, while claim 1 also recites “a history of position information of the plurality of user terminals” in line 5. It is unclear is this is a new history or the same history. The examiner assumes it is the same history for continued examination.
Claim 9 recites “a parent” in line 6, while claim 8 also recites “a parent” in line 7. It is unclear is this is a new parent or the same parent. The examiner assumes it is the same parent for continued examination.
Claim 10 recites “a history of position information of the plurality of user terminals” in lines 7 and 8, while claim 1 also recites “a history of position information of the plurality of user terminals” in line 5. It is unclear is this is a new history or the same history. The examiner assumes it is the same history for continued examination.
Claim 11 recites “a history of position information of the plurality of user terminals” in lines 4 and 5, while claim 1 also recites “a history of position information of the plurality of user terminals” in line 5. It is unclear is this is a new history or the same history. The examiner assumes it is the same history for continued examination.
Claim 11 recites “a traffic participant” in line 6, while claim 1 also recites “a traffic participant” in lines 7 and 8. It is unclear is this is a new traffic participant or the same traffic participant. The examiner assumes it is the same traffic participant for continued examination.
Claim 12 recites “a traffic participant” in line 6, while claim 1 also recites “a traffic participant” in lines 7 and 8. It is unclear is this is a new traffic participant or the same traffic participant. The examiner assumes it is the same traffic participant for continued examination.
Claim 13 recites “a traffic participant” in line 5, while claim 1 also recites “a traffic participant” in lines 7 and 8. It is unclear is this is a new traffic participant or the same traffic participant. The examiner assumes it is the same traffic participant for continued examination.
Claim 14 recites “a traffic participant” in line 5, while claim 1 also recites “a traffic participant” in lines 7 and 8. It is unclear is this is a new traffic participant or the same traffic participant. The examiner assumes it is the same traffic participant for continued examination.
Claim 15 recites “a history of position information of the plurality of user terminals” in lines 4 and 5, while claim 1 also recites “a history of position information of the plurality of user terminals” in line 5. It is unclear is this is a new history or the same history. The examiner assumes it is the same history for continued examination.
Claim 16 recites “a traffic participant” in lines 5 and 6, while claim 1 also recites “a traffic participant” in lines 7 and 8. It is unclear is this is a new traffic participant or the same traffic participant. The examiner assumes it is the same traffic participant for continued examination.
Claim 17 recites “a traffic participant” in lines 5 and 6, while claim 1 also recites “a traffic participant” in lines 7 and 8. It is unclear is this is a new traffic participant or the same traffic participant. The examiner assumes it is the same traffic participant for continued examination.
Claim 18 recites “a parent” in line 6, while claim 17 also recites “a parent” in line 7. It is unclear is this is a new parent or the same parent. The examiner assumes it is the same parent for continued examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 thru 3, 7 thru 10 and 16 thru 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP-20083130376-A (translation cited).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20 Ishikawa et al teach, the claimed assistance controlling apparatus, pedestrian detection device 10 (Figures 1 and 2), the claimed assistance controlling method, flowcharts of the pedestrian detection control (Figures 3 and 8), and the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium which stores a program of a computer, the pedestrian detection device 10 includes a control unit 20 that has an arithmetic processing circuit including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and the like (page 5 paragraph 9), comprising:
the claimed acquiring unit, identifying unit and assistance controlling unit, the control unit 20 function as an arithmetic processing circuit that includes a CPU (page 5 paragraph 9), the claimed units perform the method comprising:
the claimed acquire position information of a plurality of user terminals, “the pedestrian detected by each pedestrian detection means possesses a portable device that wirelessly transmits at least one of the pedestrian's last name and address” (page 3 paragraph 2), and “a pair of pedestrians having a predetermined positional relationship are detected on both sides ahead of the host vehicle in the traveling direction” (page 3 paragraph 6), each portable wireless device of the pedestrians are detected and equates to the claimed plurality of user terminals;
the claimed identify first and second user terminals from among the plurality of user terminals which are moving at a distance of a predetermined value or less from each other based on a history of position information of the user terminals, “A control unit detects existence of a predetermined relation about a pair of pedestrians who have a predetermined positional relation in both sides at the front of the traveling direction of the own vehicle” (abstract), and “in step S17, it is determined whether or not there is a history of at least one of both pedestrians crossing the road” (page 7 last paragraph and Figure 3); and
the claimed perform control related to assistance for a traffic participant when the first or second user terminal is detected to move to an opposite side of a road with respect to a position of an other of the first and second user terminals, “If there is a history that one of the pedestrians crossed the road, 1 is set as FLAG3 for both pedestrians in step S18, and if there is no history, step S18 is bypassed. Here, FLAG3 of 1 indicates that both pedestrians are assumed to have the predetermined relationship due to the crossing history. This FLAG3 corresponds to the pop-out risk coefficient K3. As shown in FIG. 5C, when FLAG2 is 1, K3 is set to 2.0, and when FLAG3 is 0, K3 is 1. Set to .0. This is because, when there is the predetermined relationship, there is a higher risk of crossing the road trying to move to the other side, that is, jumping forward in the traveling direction of the host vehicle than when there is no predetermined relationship. Note that when FLAG4 is 1, the jumping risk coefficient K3 is set to 2.0, which is larger than K1 and K2, because the actual crossing history may cause another crossing. Is relatively high.” (page 8 first paragraph and Figure 3), and “In step S27, the brake and the steering actuator constituting the safety system 33 may be operated so as to avoid collision with a pedestrian.” (page 9 last paragraph and Figure 3).
Ishikawa et al do not explicitly teach the claimed predetermined distance between the first and second user devices, but instead rely on a predetermined positional relationship that indicates an association between the pair of pedestrians. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a predetermined positional relationship would include a situation where two persons are in close proximity to each other. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a predetermined distance between users in the predetermined positional relationship of the pedestrian detection device of Ishikawa et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, prevent a reduction in the reliability of a warning (Ishikawa et al page 4 line 1).
Regarding claim 2 Ishikawa et al teach the claimed apparatus of claim 1 (see above), wherein, Ishikawa et al teach the claimed perform control causing a moving object which approaches a position of the second user terminal to output a warning, “In step S27, an alarm system 32 such as a warning sound or alarm display may be activated. Further, in this case, when the pop-out risk degrees C1 and C2 are large, the warning sound may be increased and the warning display may be changed to a display more easily noticed by the driver. According to this, the driver can appropriately execute the collision avoidance operation in accordance with the flying risk degrees C1 and C2.” (page 9 paragraph 9).
Regarding claims 3 and 10 Ishikawa et al teach the claimed apparatus of claims 1 and 2 (see above), wherein, Ishikawa et al teach
the claimed acquire information indicating whether users associated with the plurality of user terminals are speaking, “Next, in step S13, it is detected from the audio data detected in step S1 whether or not both pedestrians are talking. Here, whether or not a conversation is occurring is detected by, for example, whether one pedestrian speaks and then the other pedestrian speaks within a predetermined time.” (page 7 paragraph 8); and
the claimed identify that the first and second users are speaking alternately based on the history of the positional information, “detect the presence or absence of the predetermined relationship based on whether or not the pair of pedestrians detected by the pedestrian detection unit is having a conversation based on the detection result of the voice detection unit” (page 2 last paragraph), and “Next, in step S14, it is determined whether or not both pedestrians are talking. If it is determined that both pedestrians are talking, 1 is set as FLAG2 for both pedestrians in step S15. If it is set and no conversation is made, step S15 is bypassed. Here, FLAG2 of 1 indicates that it is assumed that both pedestrians have the predetermined relationship because both pedestrians are talking.” (page 7 paragraph 9), the identification that the pedestrians are talking equates to the claimed history of position information (near to each other and carrying on a conversation).
Regarding claims 7 and 16 Ishikawa et al teach the claimed apparatus of claims 1 and 2 (see above), further comprising, Ishikawa et al teach the claimed
the claimed interpersonal relationship information acquiring unit and assistance controlling unit, the control unit 20 function as an arithmetic processing circuit that includes a CPU (page 5 paragraph 9), the claimed units perform the method comprising:
the claimed acquire interpersonal relationship information indicating an interpersonal relationship among a plurality of users associated with the plurality of user terminals, “A control unit detects existence of a predetermined relation about a pair of pedestrians who have a predetermined positional relation in both sides at the front of the traveling direction of the own vehicle” (abstract), “FLAG1 of 1 indicates that both pedestrians are assumed to have the predetermined relationship because they are facing each other.” (page 7 paragraph 7), “FLAG2 of 1 indicates that it is assumed that both pedestrians have the predetermined relationship because both pedestrians are talking.” (page 7 paragraph 9), and “FLAG3 of 1 indicates that both pedestrians are assumed to have the predetermined relationship due to the crossing history.” (page 8 paragraph 1), wherein
the claimed determine whether to enhance or reduce the assistance for the traffic participant according to the interpersonal relationship between a first terminal user and a second terminal user, “In step S27, the brake and the steering actuator constituting the safety system 33 may be operated so as to avoid collision with a pedestrian. For example, the actuator is operated so that the braking force of the brake is stronger and the steering is lighter. According to this, the collision avoidance operation | movement of the own vehicle will be automatically performed according to the flying risk C1, C2.” (page 9 last paragraph and Figure 3).
Regarding claims 8 and 17 Ishikawa et al teach the claimed apparatus of claims 1 and 2 (see above), further comprising, Ishikawa et al teach the claimed
the claimed interpersonal relationship information acquiring unit and assistance controlling unit, the control unit 20 function as an arithmetic processing circuit that includes a CPU (page 5 paragraph 9), the claimed units perform the method comprising:
the claimed acquire information indicating a parent-child relationship between a first user and a second user, “FLAG4 is 1 only for a pedestrian less than 110 cm, for example, both pedestrians have a parent-child relationship and the like, and a pedestrian less than 110 cm (a pedestrian with a shorter height) is assumed to be a child.” (page 8 paragraph 4), “FLAG5 of 1 indicates that both pedestrians are assumed to have a family relationship such as a parent and child or a couple due to the same address and surname of both pedestrians.” (page 10 paragraph 9), and “FLAG6 is only 1 for pedestrians under 12 years of age, for example, indicates that both pedestrians have a parent-child relationship, and that pedestrians under 12 years of age are assumed to be children.” (page 10 last paragraph), wherein
the claimed perform control related to assistance for the traffic participant based on the first and second users being a parent and a child, “In step S27, the brake and the steering actuator constituting the safety system 33 may be operated so as to avoid collision with a pedestrian. For example, the actuator is operated so that the braking force of the brake is stronger and the steering is lighter. According to this, the collision avoidance operation | movement of the own vehicle will be automatically performed according to the flying risk C1, C2.” (page 9 last paragraph and Figure 3).
Regarding claims 9 and 18 Ishikawa et al teach the claimed apparatus of claims 1, 2, 8 and 17 (see above), wherein, Ishikawa et al teach the claimed
the claimed reduce assistance for the traffic participant when the user is child than when the user is a parent, “In step S27, the brake and the steering actuator constituting the safety system 33 may be operated so as to avoid collision with a pedestrian. For example, the actuator is operated so that the braking force of the brake is stronger and the steering is lighter. According to this, the collision avoidance operation | movement of the own vehicle will be automatically performed according to the flying risk C1, C2.” (page 9 last paragraph and Figure 3).
Related Art
The examiner points to Kiryu et al WIPO document WO 2019/240062 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Kiryu et al is directed to an information communication system with a first mobile terminal, a storage unit and a control unit. The first mobile terminal is carried by a travelling person. The storage unit is a data center capable of communication with the first mobile terminal, and stores a preset geographic location. The control unit notifies of the approach of the first mobile terminal to the geographic location in a location separated by a prescribed distance from the geographic location (abstract) (determining the position of pedestrians from a mobile terminal). Also see Figures 21, 25, 29, 32 and 38.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6 and 11 thru 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662