DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because applicant supplied abstract exceeding word length range for 150 word in length for abstract summary purpose. Appropriate further correction is advised.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “A storage medium storing a program” directs to data and signal per se. Please also see MPEP 2106.03 I. The Four Categories.
In this instant case, applicant recited storage medium also interoperated as a data/signal itself per se contained yet not under concrete and tangible form.
Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal/data, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03.
As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03.
Applicant is advised to further specify the term, “non-transitory” to further clarify and concrete the claim limitation.
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 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.
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: road type recognizing unit, acquisition unit and traffic signal recognizing unit in claim 1.
In this instant case, the recited unit directs to a generic placeholder without precedent structure modifier along with function limitation “configured to” and thus are treated as functional limitation.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 14 and 15 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.
It is also noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon dependency.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “auxiliary information which is information…on which the mobile object…and which is used to recognized” does not particularly and distinctly set forth for what exactly the term “which” is referring to regards the metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention in order to ascertain the claim limitation for applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a traffic participant…a traffic participant” does not provide sufficient antecedent basis per applicant’s invention within the claim limitation. Appropriate further clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention under Naoyoshi (JP2020/087175 in view of EPO English Translation).
Regarding Claims 1, 14 and 15, Naoyoshi shows a control method (See at least Para 0156 for operation flowchart for electric mobility vehicle), a storage medium storing a program (See at least Para 0086 for RAM/ROM), a control device for a mobile object moves in both a roadway and a predetermined area other than the roadway (See at least Para 0044 for remote control device for electric mobility vehicle also shown on figure 1), comprising:
a road type recognizing unit configured to recognize whether the mobile object is moving in the roadway or the predetermined area on the basis of an output of a sensing device for sensing circumstances of the mobile object (See at least Para 0046 - 0049 for crosswalk, intersection with control area and control device; at least Para 0051 entry detection unit detects electric mobility vehicle enters vicinity of crosswalk; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6);
an acquisition unit configured to acquire auxiliary information as information other than traffic information indicating permission of progress and instruction of stop instructed by signaling of a pedestrian signal on which the mobile object focuses and which is indicated by the pedestrian signal which is used to recognize the permission of progress or the instruction of stop indicated by signaling of the pedestrian signal (See at least Para 0053 for permission to progress or stop of the electric mobility vehicle with control signal transmitter/receiver for mobility vehicle on Para 0052 – 0054; also Para 0060 for pedestrian signal; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6);
a traffic signal recognizing unit configured to recognize traffic information which is the permission of progress or the instruction of stop indicated by signaling of the pedestrian signal using the auxiliary information acquired by the acquisition unit (See at least Para 0060 - 0062 for pedestrian signal used with red/green signal as traffic signal acquired by control device; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6);
a control unit configured to control the mobile object on the basis of the traffic information of the pedestrian signal recognized by the traffic signal recognizing unit when the mobile object is located in the predetermined area (See at least Para 0063 for automated stop for electric mobility vehicle and automated travel on Para 0065 by processing device when within control area also on figure 2 and 3; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Naoyoshi shows auxiliary information is a traffic signal that permits progress of a traffic participant in a direction different from
a direction in which the focused pedestrian signal permits progress of a traffic participant (See at least figure 1 for pedestrian traffic signal on all 4 directions each differ from the others as permitting/prohibiting the traffic participant).
Regarding Claim 4, Naoyoshi shows the auxiliary information indicating a motion of a person estimated to move on the basis of the traffic information indicated by the focused pedestrian signal (See at least Para 0062 for estimated to move by the focused pedestrian signal as green state signal on pedestrian traffic signal R1).
Regarding Claim 7, Naoyoshi shows the auxiliary information indicating a motion of a person who is estimated to move on the basis of the traffic information indicated by the focused pedestrian signal or information indicating a motion of a person near the mobile object and traffic information of a traffic signal that permits progress in a direction different from a direction in which the focused pedestrian signal permits progress (See at least Para 0062 for estimated to move by the focused pedestrian signal as green state signal on pedestrian traffic signal R1),
the traffic signal recognizing unit recognizes whether the focused pedestrian signal permits progress using the information indicating a motion of a person ( See at least Para 0051 for detecting electric mobility vehicle 10 with person detected when entering control area; also at least Para 0051 for detecting electric mobility vehicle 10 with person detected when entering control area)
and the traffic information of the traffic signal that permits progress in the different direction (See at least figure 1 for pedestrian traffic signal on all 4 directions each differ from the others as permitting/prohibiting the traffic participant),
the control unit controls the mobile object on the basis of a recognition result from the traffic signal recognizing unit (See at least Para 0063 for automated stop for electric mobility vehicle and automated travel on Para 0065 by processing device when within control area also on figure 2 and 3; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Naoyoshi shows the control unit limits a speed of the mobile object when the mobile object moves in the roadway to a first speed (See at least Para 0101 for speed at 6 km/hour for roadway/human walkway),
limits the speed of the mobile object when the mobile object moves in the predetermined area to a second speed lower than the first speed (See at least Para 0101 for speed at 4 per km/hour for roadway/human walkway for crossing pedestrian 3a on figure 1),
the control unit performs an operation for moving the mobile object in a direction in which the pedestrian signal permits progress when the mobile object is scheduled to move according to the traffic information of the focused pedestrian signal (See at least para 0053 for control signal to auto stop and auto run of the vehicle 10 based upon traffic signal),
the traffic signal recognizing unit recognizes that the focused pedestrian signal permits progress (See at least Para 0051 for detecting electric mobility vehicle 10 with person detected when entering control area; also Para 0053 for control signal to auto stop and auto run of the vehicle 10 based upon traffic signal).
Regarding Claim 12, Naoyoshi the acquisition unit acquires the traffic information of the focused pedestrian signal on the basis of the output of the sensing device (See at least Para 0046 - 0049 for crosswalk, intersection with control area and control device; at least Para 0051 entry detection unit detects electric mobility vehicle enters vicinity of crosswalk; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6),
the traffic signal recognizing unit acquires the traffic information of the pedestrian signal using the auxiliary information when the acquisition unit is not able to acquire the traffic information (See at least Para 0060 - 0062 for pedestrian signal used with red/green signal as traffic signal acquired by control device; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Naoyoshi shows the control unit controls the mobile object on the basis of a recognition result from the traffic signal recognizing unit
(See at least Para 0060 - 0062 for pedestrian signal used with red/green signal as traffic signal acquired by control device; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6),
and then causes the mobile object to entered a road or a pedestrian crossing in which progress is permitted by the traffic information from the walkway in which the mobile object is located and to cross the road (See at least para 0053 for control signal to auto stop and auto run of the vehicle 10 based upon traffic signal; also on figure 1 for vehicle/mobile object 10 is entering the control area 8 toward cross road).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoyoshi (JP2020/087175 in view of EPO English Translation) in view of Chiang et al (US Pat No. 10,600,318).
Regarding Claim 2, Naoyoshi shows the auxiliary information is output according to the traffic information of the pedestrian signal (See at least Para 0039 for signal state of pedestrian traffic light); however, Naoyoshi does not further specify auxiliary information is an alarm sound for a visually impaired person.
Chiang et al shows an alarm sound for a visually impaired person (See at least Col 2, lines 60- 65 for sound alert for visually impaired person).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to further provide sound information for the visually impaired at crosswalk, as discussed by Chiang, for the pedestrian walking of Naoyoshi, in order to provide known technique of sounding notification for blind in crossing discussed by Chiang, toward known pedestrian traffic signal of Naoyoshi in order to yield predictable result of pedestrian crossing guiding, as desired by both Naoyoshi and Chiang.
Note: It is also noted that applicant recited claim 2 directs to intended use “for a visually impaired person” does not further limiting recited alarm sound along with its parent control device structure apparatus claims.
Please see MPEP 2111.02 , See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Naoyoshi shows the auxiliary information is output according to the traffic information of the pedestrian signal and information indicating a motion of a person who is estimated to move on the basis of the traffic information indicated by the focused pedestrian signal (See at least Para 0062 for estimated to move by the focused pedestrian signal as green state signal on pedestrian traffic signal R1),
the traffic signal recognizing unit recognizes whether the focused pedestrian signal permits progress (See at least Para 0060 - 0062 for pedestrian signal used with red/green signal as traffic signal acquired by control device; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6) and the information indicating a motion of a person (See at least Para 0051 for detecting electric mobility vehicle 10 with person detected when entering control area),
the control unit controls the mobile object on the basis of a recognition
result from the traffic signal recognizing unit (See at least para 0053 for control signal to auto stop and auto run of the vehicle 10 based upon traffic signal).
Naoyoshi does not further specify an alarm sound for a visually impaired person (See at least Col 2, lines 60- 65 for sound alert for visually impaired person), pedestrian signal permits progress using the alarm sound for a visually impaired person (See at least Col 4, liens 44 – 60 for visually impaired person to pass pedestrian with along with directional speaker on pedestrian also on Col 2, lines 60 - 65).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to further provide sound information for the visually impaired at crosswalk, as discussed by Chiang, for the pedestrian walking of Naoyoshi, in order to provide known technique of sounding notification for blind in crossing discussed by Chiang, toward known pedestrian traffic signal of Naoyoshi in order to yield predictable result of pedestrian crossing guiding, as desired by both Naoyoshi and Chiang.
Regarding Claim 6, Naoyoshi shows the auxiliary information is output according to the traffic information of the pedestrian signal (See at least Para 0039 for signal state of pedestrian traffic light) and traffic information of a traffic signal that permits progress of a traffic participant in a direction different from a direction in which the focused pedestrian signal permits progress of a traffic participant (See at least figure 1 for pedestrian traffic signal on all 4 directions each differ from the others as permitting/prohibiting the traffic participant),
the traffic signal recognizing unit recognizes whether the focused pedestrian signal permits progress using the auxiliary information (See at least Para 0060 - 0062 for pedestrian signal used with red/green signal as traffic signal acquired by control device; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6) and the traffic information of the signal that permits progress in the different direction (See at least figure 1 for pedestrian traffic signal on all 4 directions each differ from the others as permitting/prohibiting the traffic participant),
the control unit controls the mobile object on the basis of a recognition result from the traffic signal recognizing unit (See at least Para 0063 for automated stop for electric mobility vehicle and automated travel on Para 0065 by processing device when within control area also on figure 2 and 3; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6); Naoyoshi does not further specify auxiliary information is alarm sound for a visually impaired person.
Chiang et al shows auxiliary information as an alarm sound for a visually impaired person (See at least Col 2, lines 60- 65 for sound alert for visually impaired person).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to further provide sound information for the visually impaired at crosswalk, as discussed by Chiang, for the pedestrian walking of Naoyoshi, in order to provide known technique of sounding notification for blind in crossing discussed by Chiang, toward known pedestrian traffic signal of Naoyoshi in order to yield predictable result of pedestrian crossing guiding, as desired by both Naoyoshi and Chiang.
Note: It is also noted that applicant recited claim 5 directs to intended use “for a visually impaired person” does not further limiting recited alarm sound along with its parent control device structure apparatus claims.
Please see MPEP 2111.02 , See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 8, Naoyoshi shows the auxiliary information is (2) information indicating a motion of a person who is estimated to move on the basis of the traffic information indicated by the focused pedestrian signal (See at least figure 1 for pedestrian traffic signal on all 4 directions each differ from the others as permitting/prohibiting the traffic participant),
Or (3) traffic information of a traffic signal that permits progress in a direction different from a direction in which the focused pedestrian signal permits progress (See at least figure 1 for pedestrian traffic signal on all 4 directions each differ from the others as permitting/prohibiting the traffic participant),
the traffic signal recognizing unit recognizes that a pedestrian signal near the mobile object has switched from a first state for the instruction of stop to a second state for the permission of progress (See at least Para 0053 for permission to progress or stop of the electric mobility vehicle with control signal transmitter/receiver for mobility vehicle on Para 0052 – 0054; also Para 0060 for pedestrian signal) on the basis of one or more pieces of information (See (2) (3) above for pedestrian person motion signal information on (2) and directional traffic information in different direction on (3)),
recognizes whether the focused pedestrian signal has switched to the second state (See at least Para 0053 for permission to progress or stop of the electric mobility vehicle with control signal transmitter/receiver for mobility vehicle on Para 0052 – 0054; also Para 0060 for pedestrian signal),
however, Naoyoshi does not further shows an alarm sound for a visually impaired person which is output according to the traffic information of the pedestrian signal.
Chiang et al shows an alarm sound for a visually impaired person which is output according to the traffic information of the pedestrian signal.(See at least Col 2, lines 60- 65 for sound alert for visually impaired person).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to further provide sound information for the visually impaired at crosswalk, as discussed by Chiang, for the pedestrian walking of Naoyoshi, in order to provide known technique of sounding notification for blind in crossing discussed by Chiang, toward known pedestrian traffic signal of Naoyoshi in order to yield predictable result of pedestrian crossing guiding, as desired by both Naoyoshi and Chiang.
Note: It is also noted that applicant recited claim 5 directs to intended use “for a visually impaired person” does not further limiting recited alarm sound along with its parent control device structure apparatus claims.
Please see MPEP 2111.02 , See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Naoyoshi shows auxiliary information is output according to the traffic information of the pedestrian signal ( See at least Para 0060 for pedestrian signal), the traffic signal recognizing unit recognizes the traffic information of the pedestrian signal (See at least Para 0063 for automated stop for electric mobility vehicle and automated travel on Para 0065 by processing device when within control area also on figure 2 and 3; also Para 0010 for processing device 20 and control device 50 on figure 6),
Chiang et al shows auxiliary information as an alarm sound for a visually impaired person (See at least Col 2, lines 60- 65 for sound alert for visually impaired person);
traffic information for an alarm sound stored in a storage device with reference to information in which a type of the alarm sound (See at least Col 6, lines 15 – 25 for increasing alarm frequency as changing sound property type with respect to remaining time; also at least Col 4, lines 12 – 25 and Col 5, lines 39 – 44 for portable trigger and directional speaker store sound alert),
pedestrian signal on the basis of a direction in which the pedestrian signal permits progress of a traffic participant is correlated ( See at least Col 4, lines 12 – 25 directional speaker store sound alert for pedestrian crossing in each direction correlated).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to further provide sound information for the visually impaired at crosswalk, as discussed by Chiang, for the pedestrian walking of Naoyoshi, in order to provide known technique of sounding notification for blind in crossing discussed by Chiang, toward known pedestrian traffic signal of Naoyoshi in order to yield predictable result of pedestrian crossing guiding, as desired by both Naoyoshi and Chiang.
Note: It is also noted that applicant recited claim 5 directs to intended use “for a visually impaired person” does not further limiting recited alarm sound along with its parent control device structure apparatus claims.
Please see MPEP 2111.02 , See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Naoyoshi shows the traffic signal recognizing unit recognizes a state of the first pedestrian signal on the basis of auxiliary information (See at least para 0053 for control signal to auto stop and auto run of the vehicle 10 based upon traffic signal),
when the mobile object moves according to the traffic information of a first pedestrian signal for regulating traffic in a first direction at a crossroad including the first pedestrian signal and a second pedestrian signal for regulating traffic in a second direction different from the first direction (See at least figure 1 for traffic information with pedestrian signal installed in crossing road for 4 different directions),
the control unit moves the mobile object according to a state of the first pedestrian signal when the traffic signal recognizing unit recognizes that the first pedestrian signal has switched to a state in which the first pedestrian signal permits progress (See at least para 0053 for control signal to auto stop and auto run of the vehicle 10 based upon traffic signal); Naoyoshi does not further discuss auxiliary information of an alarm sound for a visually impaired person which is output according to the traffic information of the pedestrian signals.
Chiang et al further shows one pieces of information as auxiliary information of an alarm sound for a visually impaired person which is output according to the traffic information of the pedestrian signals (See at least Col 2, lines 60- 65 for sound alert for visually impaired person for pedestrian crossing).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to further provide sound information for the visually impaired at crosswalk, as discussed by Chiang, for the pedestrian walking of Naoyoshi, in order to provide known technique of sounding notification for blind in crossing discussed by Chiang, toward known pedestrian traffic signal of Naoyoshi in order to yield predictable result of pedestrian crossing guiding, as desired by both Naoyoshi and Chiang.
Note: It is also noted that applicant recited claim 5 directs to intended use “for a visually impaired person” does not further limiting recited alarm sound along with its parent control device structure apparatus claims.
Please see MPEP 2111.02 , See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Korjus et al, US Pat Pub No. 2021/0343143, intersection, traffic light image, traffic light state, auto travel robot, different crossing road, pedestrian crossing, prohibit vehicle driving, first/second light.
Ueda et al, US Pat Pub No. 2006/0217874, traffic signal on crossing, pedestrian/handicapped people carry predetermined communication terminal, moving object detection, time period, signal switch/state, blinking, crossing direction, audio output, traffic signal tx/rx, crossing permit/prohibit.
Tauchi et al, US Pat No. 6,127,943, figure 1/2, crossing/prohibit signal/audio, traffic light control, audio for each specific signal state/figure 5, crossing direction/figure 6.
Chiang et al, US Pat No. 10,600,318, figure 1 - 3, directional speaker, traffic signal, blind guiding, pedestrian, crosswalk beginning area,
Im et al, CN 107533796, crossing road pedestrian sensing, pedestrian entering direction sensing, sound output with pedestrian signal, traffic light sensing, for visually impaired sound reminding, sensing walker from crossing road to pedestrian, figure 2.
Fujikawa et al, JP 2016/212120, electric cart/mobile object detection, sidewalk, determine whether car on the sidewalk, determine whether traffic light present at intersection, voice signal, traffic signal yellow/red/green detection for stop.
Eigo, JP 2020/0197387, pedestrian pass with mobile object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657