DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination.
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: “obtaining unit which obtains – corresponding to element 250 Fig. 3”, “determining unit which determines – corresponding to element 210 Fig. 3”, “storage controlling unit which causes – corresponding to element 240 Fig. 3” and “assistance controlling unit which performs – corresponding to element 260 in Fig. 3” in claims 1-18 and 20.
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.
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 § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 4-5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshida et al. (Oshida; US 2017/0092126) in view of Schonfeld et al. (Schonfeld; US 2021/0312795).
For claim 1, Oshida discloses an assistance controlling apparatus comprising:
an obtaining unit which obtains locational information of a user terminal [E.g. 0028: FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram illustrating an exemplary operation that is performed by the communication system to communicate with pedestrians 5. The second communication device 2 communicates with communication terminals 50_1-50_3 carried respectively by a plurality of pedestrians 5_1-5_3 to collect their identifiers (IDs), position information, and properties. As the position information varies with time, it is preferred that the associated time information be collected as well. Meanwhile, the properties need not be collected for services that do not use the properties. Pieces of position information collected individually from the pedestrians 5_1-5_3 by the second communication device 2 are integrated in the form of map information, for example, for an LDM (local dynamic map). The LDM generated in such an instance should include the IDs and position information about the pedestrians 5_1-5_3. In a more preferred embodiment, the LDM also includes the associated time information. When the LDM includes the associated time information, the communication device 40 mounted, for instance, in the vehicle (automobile) 4 adapted to periodically receive the LDM is capable of calculating the travel direction and speed of a pedestrian. In an alternative embodiment, the property information about the pedestrians 5_1-5_3 may be included as well. Meanwhile, the LDM need not include normally included map information (indicated by broken lines). While pedestrian information is dynamic map information, the map information is static map information, 0030: FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary operation that is performed by the communication system to create the map information (LDM). As illustrated in FIG. 2, the second communication device 2 included in the communication system 100 establishes P2I (person-to-infrastructure) communication collects information about individual pedestrians 5 through communication terminals Device_1-Device_n (communication terminals 50) carried by the pedestrians 5 (n persons). As mentioned earlier, the P2I communication is unicast or multicast communication such as wireless LAN (Wi-Fi) or Bluetooth communication. That is to say, the communication terminal Device_1 collects information about ID_1, property_1, position_1, time_1, and other_1 from one pedestrian, and the communication terminal Device_2 collects information about ID_2, property_2, position_2, time_2, and other_2 from another pedestrian. Similarly, the communication terminal Device_n collects information about ID_n, property_n, position_n, time_n, and other_n from the n-th pedestrian. The information about the ID, property, position, time, and other, which is indicated for each communication terminal (Device_1-Device_n), may be transmitted and received in the form of a single packet or separated into a plurality of packets before being transmitted and received. Alternatively, one packet may include a plurality of pieces of pedestrian information. When the communication terminals 50 carried by the pedestrians 5 have a relay function to perform, for example, multi-hopping, a relaying terminal adds its information to information about one or more trailing pedestrians and then transfers the resulting information. Therefore, there may be a case where one packet contains information about a plurality of pedestrians, 0025, 0027] ;
a determining unit which determines, based on a history of the locational information of the user terminal the direction and speed of a pedestrian [E.g. 0030: the communication terminal Device_1 collects information about ID_1, property_1, position_1, time_1, and other_1 from one pedestrian, and the communication terminal Device_2 collects information about ID_2, property_2, position_2, time_2, and other_2 from another pedestrian. Similarly, the communication terminal Device_n collects information about ID_n, property_n, position_n, time_n, and other_n from the n-th pedestrian. The information about the ID, property, position, time, and other, which is indicated for each communication terminal (Device_1-Device_n), may be transmitted and received in the form of a single packet or separated into a plurality of packets before being transmitted and received. Alternatively, one packet may include a plurality of pieces of pedestrian information, 0031: The pedestrian information including the collected position information about pedestrians is integrated as dynamic information about an LDM by the data processing device 3. The LDM into which the information about the pedestrians is integrated is transmitted to the vehicle 4 via V2X communication. That is to say, the LDM created by the infrastructure (data processing device 3) includes the whole information about all n pedestrians, namely, ID_1 to ID_n, property_1 to property_n, position_1 to position_n, and time_1 to time_n, 0028, 0036];
a storage controlling unit which causes identification information of the user to be stored [E.g. 0030-0033]; and
an assistance controlling unit which performs control regarding assistance for a traffic participant [E.g. 0033, 0046-0048, 0037].
Oshida fails to expressly disclose determining whether a user associated with the user terminal tends to cross a road at a place where no pedestrian crosswalk is provided, storing as crossing user information indicating a user crossing a road at a place where no pedestrian crosswalk is provided, when it is determined by the determining unit that the user tends to cross a road at a place where no pedestrian crosswalk is provided, and that the assistance unit perform control regarding assistance on a condition that the identification information of the user is stored as the crossing user information, when the user terminal is at a place where no pedestrian crosswalk is provided.
However, as shown by Schonfeld, it was well known in the art of pedestrian safety to include determining whether a user associated with the user terminal tends to cross a road at a place where no pedestrian crosswalk is provided [E.g. 0044: automatically detecting jaywalking of a vulnerable road user (VRU), the method comprising: storing, at a memory, past trajectory data of a plurality of vehicles and a plurality of VRUs, wherein each of the plurality of VRUs and each of the plurality of vehicles are linked to a long-term evolution (LTE)-capable user equipment (UE) terminal having an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI); detecting, at a computing device, a current trajectory of a first one of the plurality of VRUs; first determining, at the computing device, whether the detected current trajectory of the first VRU substantially matches a first path infrequently taken by the plurality of VRUs based on the past trajectory data of the plurality of VRUs; in response to the detected current trajectory of the first VRU substantially matching the first path, tagging, at the computing device, the first VRU as a selected VRU; obtaining, at the computing device, a predicted trajectory of the selected VRU; second determining, at the computing device, whether the predicted trajectory of the selected VRU crosses a second path frequently taken by the plurality of vehicles based on the past trajectory data of the plurality of vehicles, the second path being different from the first path; third determining, at the computing device, whether the predicted trajectory of the selected VRU is substantially distal to a third path marked for VRU use, 0080: other sets of past, current, and/or predicted data point and/or spatiotemporal data points may be used for such jaywalking determination. Also, the fourth determining may vary according to the jurisdiction or to the available spatiotemporal data. Accordingly, the fourth determining may comprise any sets or rules based on past, current, and/or predicted trajectories of VRUs and vehicles. In some embodiments, the fourth determining may comprise determining that the selected VRU is jaywalking when the detected current trajectory of the selected VRU substantially matches the first path, and when the predicted trajectory of the VRU substantially crosses the second path, 0089: determining jaywalking, e.g., by classifying a VRU's trajectory as either being “jaywalking” or “not jaywalking”. For example, a VRU's trajectory can be determined jaywalking if the following two conditions are satisfied: 1) the path the VRU is taking is not frequently (hereinafter to be interchangeably used with “infrequently”) taken by VRUs (using some threshold, for example) and 2) the VRU's predicted path will cross another path frequently taken by vehicles (gain, using some threshold, for example). If a system were to identify any area frequently occupied by vehicles as jaywalking, the system may falsely identify locations such as crossing walks, bridges and tunnels. On the other hand, if a system were to identify any location that pedestrians do not pass frequently as potential jaywalking, less frequent paths, areas with grass, etc. would be identified. Thus, combination of these two conditions may properly determine whether or not a VRU's road behavior is jaywalking, 0081], storing as crossing user information indicating a user crossing a road at a place where no pedestrian crosswalk is provided, when it is determined by the determining unit that the user tends to cross a road at a place where no pedestrian crosswalk is provided [E.g. 0044, 0074, 0084, 0086], and that the assistance unit perform control regarding assistance on a condition that the identification information of the user is stored as the crossing user information, when the user terminal is at a place where no pedestrian crosswalk is provided [E.g. 0058: as it relates to the field of road safety, jaywalking requires a provision of “danger notifications” to VRUs and to nearby approaching vehicles, wherein the danger notifications may be triggered according to a set of rules that take into account VRUs and vehicles past, current and predicted trajectories, as well as proximity threshold limits for danger avoidance between VRUs and vehicles. The usefulness of providing danger notifications relates to the field of road safety since jaywalking may be an offense in which accidents between pedestrians and vehicles occur, and human injury can be severe enough that VRUs may be injured or killed by vehicular traffic, and thus VRUs and vehicles must observe their respective traffic rules. To be useful, danger notifications relating to the field of road safety may require precautious triggering in order to let VRUs and vehicles sufficient lead time to react, such as to correct the offence, or to actively prepare to prevent the danger before an accident occurs. For most road circumstances, lead time to react may correspond to danger notifications provided to VRUs and vehicles at least about 5 seconds in advance, or more. Therefore, predicted trajectories of VRUs and vehicles may be useful in achieving such advanced notifications, wherein predictions may be based on modern signal processing of spatiotemporal trajectories including dead reckoning techniques and artificial intelligence (AI). Accordingly, various embodiments provide a method and system for automatically detecting VRUs and for setting danger notifications to the VRUs and to nearby approaching vehicles for the sake of collision avoidance, wherein the danger notifications are triggered according to a set of rules that take into account VRUs and vehicles past, current, and/or predicted trajectories, 0115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pedestrian safety before
the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Oshida with the teaching of Schonfeld in order to provide assistance to the user when crossing a road at a place where no crosswalk is present so that the safety of the user and others on the road are increased.
For claim 4, Schonfeld further teaches wherein the assistance controlling unit performs control for causing a moving body being around the user terminal to output a warning, as the assistance for the traffic participant [E.g. 0013, 0098, 0131, 0082].
For claim 5, Oshida discloses wherein the assistance controlling unit performs control for causing the user terminal to output a warning, as the assistance for the traffic participant [E.g. 0033, 0048].
For claim 19, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
For claim 20, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2-3 and 6-18 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.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689