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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed on 07/09/2026.
Claims 1-20 were pending. Claims 1, 15 and 18 are amended. No claim has been added nor cancelled.
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 1-6, 8, 10-12, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan (US 20200175875 A1, hereinafter “Swan”) in view of Stegeman et al. (US 20200363043 A1, hereinafter “Stegeman”)
Regarding Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Swan disclose a detection system comprising:
a first sensor installed above a first area adjacent to a pedestrian crossing, the first sensor having a first detection target area in which the first sensor detects an object, the first detection target area containing at least a portion of the first area (0025-0027 and 0030-0033; Figures 1-2; “[0025] The warning system 10 includes some type of infrastructure component, which … is a post, shown generally at 20, and connected to the post 20 is a first detection device 22A, a second detection device 22B, at least one communication device 24, and at least one warning device 26. ...”); and
a second sensor installed above the first area, the second sensor having a detection characteristic different from that of the first sensor and having a second detection target area in which the second sensor detects an object, the second detection target area containing at least a portion of the pedestrian crossing (0025-0027 and 0030-0033; Figures 1-2; “[0025] The warning system 10 includes some type of infrastructure component, … connected to the post 20 is a first detection device 22A, a second detection device 22B, ...”).
Swan failed to disclose the first sensor is pointed downward toward the first area, the first area being an area where pedestrians wait to cross a street; and
a second sensor is obliquely pointed towards the pedestrian crossing which is an area where the pedestrians cross the street, the second detection target area being at least partially outside the first detection target area.
Stegeman, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows the first sensor is pointed downward toward the first area, the first area being an area where pedestrians wait to cross a street (0074-0075; Figure 2; “[0074] … In the depicted embodiment, a plurality of endpoint devices (351A), (351B), (351C), and (351D) are shown deployed in the proximity of the luminaire control device (201). One such depicted endpoint device (351A) is a pedestrian/motion sensor. Another such depicted endpoint device (351B) is a traffic camera. ...”); and
a second sensor is obliquely pointed towards the pedestrian crossing which is an area where the pedestrians cross the street, the second detection target area being at least partially outside the first detection target area (0074-0075; Figure 2; “[0074] … In the depicted embodiment, a plurality of endpoint devices (351A), (351B), (351C), and (351D) are shown deployed in the proximity of the luminaire control device (201). One such depicted endpoint device (351A) is a pedestrian/motion sensor. Another such depicted endpoint device (351B) is a traffic camera. ...”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the multiple sensor installed on the pole that covers pedestrian waiting are as a first area and cross road where the pedestrian cross the street as second area as shown by Stegeman in the infrastructure-based warning system of Swan in order to yield a predictive result which is to improve the safety of pedestrian crossing the road at the traffic intersection.
Regarding Claim 2. (Original) Swan further disclose the detection system according to claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the first detection target area overlaps the second detection target area in the first area or the pedestrian crossing (0025; Figure 1; “[0025] ... the first detection device 22A is a camera, and the second detection device 22B is a radar. Both of the camera 22A and the radar 22B are able to detect objects in the detection area 22C. ...”).
Regarding Claim 3. (Original) Claim 3 has similar limitations to those limitations treated in the rejections above, and are met by the references as discussed above, and has been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claims 1-2 above.
Regarding Claim 4. (Previously Presented) Swan further disclose the detection system according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor includes an image sensor configured to detect an object present in the first area (0024 and 0026-0027; Figure 1; “… where the system is used as part of an intelligent intersection or intelligent road, and is used to detect various objects, such as vulnerable road users (VRUs) and vehicles. ...”), and
wherein the second sensor includes a detection sensor configured to detect an object present in the pedestrian crossing (0024, 0026-0027; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5. (Previously Presented) Swan further disclose the detection system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a housing configured to unitize the first sensor and the second sensor (0030; Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 6. (Original) Swan further disclose the detection system according to claim 5, wherein the housing has a first surface and a second surface intersecting with the first surface,
wherein the first sensor is provided on the second surface of the housing (0025, 0027 and 0030; Figure 3), and
wherein the second sensor is provided at a position facing the first surface in the housing (0025, 0027 and 0030; Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 8. (Previously Presented) Claim 8 has similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and has been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claims 1 and 4 above.
Regarding Claims 10-11. (Previously Presented) Claims 10-11 have similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and have been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 12. (Previously Presented) Swan further disclose the detection system according to claim 1, further comprising: a processing circuit configured to identify a kind of the object and to track the object present in the first area, based on sensor data from the first sensor and to perform a process of causing the second sensor to track the identified object in the pedestrian crossing (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 15. (Currently Amended) A detection device claim 15 is drawn to the device corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, device claim 15 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding Claim 17. (Previously Presented) The detection device claim 17 is drawn to the device corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 4. Therefore, device claim 17 corresponds to method claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding Claim 18. (Currently Amended) A method of installing a detection device claim 18 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding system claimed in claim 1. Therefore, method claim 18 corresponds to system claim 1 is rejected for same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding Claims 19-20. (Previously Presented) Claims 19-20 have similar limitations to those treated in the above rejections, and are met by the references as discussed above, and has been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claim 4 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan in view of Stegeman as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Itoh (US 20200175875 A1, hereinafter “Itoh”).
Regarding Claim 7. (Previously Presented) Swan in view of Stegeman shows the detection system according to claim 6, but failed to show wherein the detection sensor includes an antenna configured to emit a detection signal in a millimeter wave band and to receive a reflected wave of the emitted detection signal, the reflected wave being reflected by an object, and
wherein the antenna is provided in parallel with the first surface in the housing.
Itoh, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows a vehicle management system wherein the detection sensor includes an antenna configured to emit a detection signal in a millimeter wave band and to receive a reflected wave of the emitted detection signal, the reflected wave being reflected by an object (0053; Figure 2), and
wherein the antenna is provided in parallel with the first surface in the housing (0053; Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the antenna of Itoh in the infrastructure-based warning system of Swan in view of Stegeman in order to yield a predictive result which is to improve the quality of signal transmission for the traffic control system of the intersection of the crossroads.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 9, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan in view of Stegeman as applied to claims 1, 12 and 15 above, and further in view of CAMRAS et al. (US 20210383683 A1, hereinafter “CAMRAS”).
Regarding Claim 9. (Previously Presented) Swan in view of Stegeman shows the detection system according to claim 1, but failed to disclose further comprising:
an illumination circuitry configured to illuminate the first area.
CAMRAS, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows a vehicle management system comprising an illumination circuitry configured to illuminate the first area (0099).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of the illumination circuitry of CAMRAS in Swan in view of Stegeman in order to yield a predictable result which is the illumination of the target area.
Regarding Claim 13. (Previously Presented) Swan in view of Stegeman shows the detection system according to Claim 12, but failed to disclose wherein the processing circuit further performs a predetermined process depending on the result of identification of the object in the first area or a situation of tracking the object in the pedestrian crossing.
CAMRAS, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows a vehicle management system comprising wherein the processing circuit further performs a predetermined process depending on the result of identification of the object in the first area or a situation of tracking the object in the pedestrian crossing (0046-0047; Figures 3-4).
The motivation used on the rejection of claim 9 to combine the CAMRAS prior art into the Swan in view of Stegeman prior arts still applies to the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14. (Original) CAMRAS further shows the detection system according to claim 13, wherein the predetermined process includes at least notifying a vehicle trying to enter the pedestrian crossing of presence of the object, recording a trajectory along Which the object moves in the pedestrian crossing, or controlling a pedestrian traffic light provided for the pedestrian crossing (0046-0047; Figures 3-4).
The motivation used on the rejection of claim 9 to combine the CAMRAS prior art into the Swan in view of Stegeman prior arts still applies to the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding Claim 16. (Previously Presented) The detection device claim 16 is drawn to the device corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 9. Therefore, device claim 16 corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-5pm EST.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights