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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ren et al (US20210264792).
Regarding claim 1, Ren discloses a heads-up area setting device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (para. [0022]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (para. [0022]) to:
detect a moving object located in a predetermined monitoring area (para. [0015], New boundaries can be generated in realtime as people move around creating a dynamic geofence; para. [0032], Base station 201 can track the movement of people (e.g., through communication with mobile electronic devices) in an area to facilitate geofence creation and geofence changes); and
determine a range of a heads-up area (para. [0033], Cloud service 202 creates a geofence from the person count and reference locations) based on an arrangement situation of the moving object in the monitoring area (para. [0035], In general, the boundary geometry of a geofence can extend around people located within a specified range, for example, 20-30 meters, from base station 201. The boundary geometry of a geofence can be updated in essentially real time as people move; para. [0041], As person count 213 and reference locations 214 change, base station 201 can generate a new boundary for geofence 216. Alternately, base station 201 can send person count 213 and reference locations 214 to cloud service 202. As person count 213 and reference locations 214 change, cloud service 202 can generate a new boundary for geofence 216).
Regarding claim 2, Ren discloses a heads-up area setting device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine a heads-up area covering the moving object located in the predetermined monitoring area (para. [0035], In general, the boundary geometry of a geofence can extend around people located within a specified range, for example, 20-30 meters, from base station 201. The boundary geometry of a geofence can be updated in essentially real time as people move; para. [0038], Method 300 includes creating a geofence that surrounds each person included in the person count based on the person count and the reference locations).
Regarding claim 6, Ren discloses a heads-up area setting device wherein the moving object is one of a pedestrian, a bicycle, a vehicle platoon, and a delivery robot (para. [0015], [0032]).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al (US20210264792) in view of Cline et al (US20220130293).
Regarding claim 3, Ren teaches a heads-up area setting device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine the heads-up area by selecting an area (para. [0035]) having a density of the moving object equal to or greater than a predetermined value (para. [0042], Density criteria can be defined, for example, as one person in a circle of diameter 3 m).
Ren fails to teach sections obtained by dividing the monitoring area in accordance with a predetermined standard.
However Cline teaches sections obtained by dividing a monitoring area in accordance with a predetermined standard (para. [0025], [0034]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Ren and Cline as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Cline into the device of Ren. The motivation to combine Cline and Ren would be to contribute to the overall safety of an event (para. [0021] of Cline).
Regarding claim 4, Ren teaches a heads-up area setting device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine the heads-up area by excluding an area having a density of the moving object equal to or less than a predetermined value (para. [0017], As device totals and device locations in an existing geofence decrease, the existing geofence boundary can be reduced. Geofences that lack sufficient numbers of devices (and thus are no longer representative of a crowd) can be deleted).
Ren fails to teach sections obtained by dividing the monitoring area in accordance with a predetermined standard.
However Cline teaches sections obtained by dividing a monitoring area in accordance with a predetermined standard (para. [0025], [0034]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Ren and Cline as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Cline into the device of Ren. The motivation to combine Cline and Ren would be to contribute to the overall safety of an event (para. [0021] of Cline).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al (US20210264792) in view of Ong et al (US20220046381).
Regarding claim 5, Ren fails to teach a heads-up area setting device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
identify an attribute or a type of the moving object; and
change the range of the heads-up area based on the attribute or the type of the moving object.
However Ong teaches identifying an attribute or a type of the moving object (para. [0035], Camera 122 may perform object recognition to identify particular vehicles 110, pedestrians 114, bicyclists 116, scooters 118 and/or other types of street entities in the captured images or videos and/or determine the position, bearing, speed, and/or acceleration of particular vehicles 110, pedestrians 114, bicyclists 116, scooters 118, and/or other types of street entities in the captured images or videos); and
changing the range of a heads-up area based on the attribute or the type of the moving object (para. [0025], In some implementations, V2X object exchange system may estimate the braking distance and/or generate the geofence using a machine learning model trained to predict the estimated braking distance based on a plurality of vehicle parameters and a plurality of environmental parameters; para. [0074]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Ren and Ong as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Ong into the device of Ren. The motivation to combine Ong and Ren would be to reduce the number of road accidents and to enhance road safety (para. [0016] of Ong).
Regarding claim 7, Ren fails to teach a heads-up area setting device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
transmit a notification for informing of presence of the heads-up area to a vehicle entering the heads-up area.
However Ong teaches transmitting a notification for informing of presence of the heads-up area to a vehicle entering the heads-up area (para. [0028], [0082]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Ren and Ong as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features of Ong into the device of Ren. The motivation to combine Ong and Ren would be to reduce the number of road accidents and to enhance road safety (para. [0016] of Ong).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Ren teaches a heads-up area setting device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
identify an attribute or a type of a vehicle entering the heads-up area (para. [0025], [0035] of Ong); and
transmit the notification to a vehicle (para. [0068] of Ong) having a specific attribute or type among vehicles entering the heads-up area (para. [0082] of Ong).
Related Art
Kurehashi et al (US20220084409) – see figs. 3, 4 and 6, para. [0019]-[0020]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights