DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on May 20th, 2026.
Claims 1 – 15 are pending in current application.
Claims 1 – 15 are amended.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “directly recognized…indirectly recognize…” provides the claim subject matter that were not described in the written description in the manner convey the skilled in the art that applicant’s claim limitation were had possession of the invention at the time of filing.
In this instant case, upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “directly recognized…indirectly recognize” to convey the claim subject matter for skilled in the art, at the time of filing, that applicant possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
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 - 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, “a direction different from a direction in which the focused pedestrian signal…” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for which direction as the direction as a direction or a direction differ from a direction.
In this instant case, applicant recited term “which” does not distinctly set forth for what or which “a direction” that applicant referring to as whether directs to a first a direction or a second a director or the first a direction is the same as the second a direction that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention.
Please also see MPEP 2173.05(e). Similarly, if two different levers are recited earlier in the claim, the recitation of "said lever" in the same or subsequent claim would be unclear where it is uncertain which of the two levers was intended. A claim which refers to "said aluminum lever," but recites only "a lever" earlier in the claim, is indefinite because it is uncertain as to the lever to which reference is made.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “directly recognized…indirectly recognize” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which exactly is indirectly recognized that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention in order to ascertain the metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention.
In this instant case, upon further review, skilled in the art could not locate the term or description regarding recited “directly recognized…indirectly recognize” as ought to be described within written description as to what or which is indirectly recognized in contrast to directly recognized as the metes and bounds regarding directly…indirectly were not definite set forth distinctly and particularly.
Please also see MPEP 2173.05(i). Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining.").
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “information…signal on which the mobile object focus…directly recognized” does not particularly and distinctly set forth for what or which is exactly recognized as to ascertain the metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “an output…an output” does not supply sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 1, 7 11, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “the traffic signal recognition unit” does not supply sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “the control unit” does not supply sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate further clarification is required.
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 1 - 15 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 1, Naoyoshi shows a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (See at least Para 0086 for ROM, read only memory 24c, provide program instruction to be executed also shown on drawing 3);
a processor connected to the storage medium (See at least Para 0086 for CPU 24a executed the program instruction received from read only memory 24c also shown on drawing 3),
the processor executes the computer-readable instructions to (See at least Para 0086 for CPU 24a executed the program instruction received from read only memory 24c also shown on drawing 3):
recognize whether the mobile object is moving in the roadway or in 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);
if traffic information of a pedestrian signal on which the mobile object focuses recognized from an 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);
if traffic information of a pedestrian signal on which the mobile object focuses cannot be directly recognized from an output of the sensing device (Note: Please see MPEP 2111.04. II. Contingent Limitations for claim limitation only bounds to apparatus recited under when applicant recited conditional/contingent claim limitation directed to open loop when “if” condition is not occurred/met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
In this instant case, applicant recited apparatus claim directs to processor with storage medium storing computer readable instructions recited above by Naoyoshi satisfied when the recited contingent limitation not performed );
acquire auxiliary information including 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 ; also on at least Para 0062 for estimated to move by the focused pedestrian signal as green state signal on pedestrian traffic signal R1);
control the mobile object on the basis of the traffic information of the pedestrian signal recognized by the traffic signal recognizing unit (See at least Para 0044 for remote control device for electric mobility vehicle also shown on figure 1; also on 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)
when the mobile object is located in the predetermined area (See at least Para 0101 for speed at 6 km/hour for roadway/human walkway also shown on figure 1).
Chiang et al further shows if traffic information of a pedestrian signal cannot be directly recognized from an output of the sensing device ( See at least Col 2, lines 60- 65 for visually impaired person cannot directly recognized the traffic information from an output),
acquire auxiliary information including 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);
indirectly recognize the traffic information which is a permission of progress or an instruction of stop indicated by signaling of the pedestrian signal using the auxiliary information (See at least Col 2, lines 60- 65 for sound alert for visually impaired person as indirectly recognized).
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 above 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 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 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 the 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 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),
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),
control the mobile object on the basis of a recognition result (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 processor further executes the computer readable instructions (See at least Para 0086 for CPU 24a executed the program instruction received from read only memory 24c also shown on drawing 3)
to 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),
control the mobile object on the basis of a recognition result (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 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 processor further executes the computer readable instructions to (See at least Para 0086 for CPU 24a executed the program instruction received from read only memory 24c also shown on drawing 3) recognize 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),
control 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 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 processor further executes the computer readable instructions (See at least Para 0086 for CPU 24a executed the program instruction received from read only memory 24c also shown on drawing 3)
to recognize 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)),
recognize 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 processor further executes the computer readable instructions (See at least Para 0086 for CPU 24a executed the program instruction received from read only memory 24c also shown on drawing 3)
to recognize 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 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 processor further executes the computer readable instructions to (See at least Para 0086 for CPU 24a executed the program instruction received from read only memory 24c also shown on drawing 3)
perform 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),
recognize 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 11, Naoyoshi shows the processor further executes the computer readable instructions (See at least Para 0086 for CPU 24a executed the program instruction received from read only memory 24c also shown on drawing 3)
to recognize 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),
move the mobile object according to a state of the first pedestrian signal when 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.
Regarding Claim 12, Naoyoshi shows the processor further executes the computer readable instructions (See at least Para 0086 for CPU 24a executed the program instruction received from read only memory 24c also shown on drawing 3) to acquire 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),
acquire the traffic information of the pedestrian signal using the auxiliary information when 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 processor further executes the computer readable instructions (See at least Para 0086 for CPU 24a executed the program instruction received from read only memory 24c also shown on drawing 3) to control the mobile object on the basis of a recognition result
(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 cause 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) when the traffic information of the focused pedestrian signal is acquired and recognized that 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 ; also on at least Para 0062 for estimated to move by the focused pedestrian signal as green state signal on pedestrian traffic signal R1).
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s remark that Naoyoshi in view of Chiang et al does not shows applicant newly recited claim limitation; however, applicant’s attention is directed to Page 2 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed.
Further, applicant’s remark further discussed the technical advantage of the instant application compare with recited reference; however, this specific technical advantage relating to/recited in claim limitation requires specific discussion within applicant’s written description. Appropriate further clarification is required. Applicant’s attention is directed to Page 2 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 9999999999999999 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
Prosecution Insights