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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on April 20, 2026. Claims 1-15 are currently pending, with Claims 1, 6, and 8-9 being amended.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed April 20, 2026, the Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections, withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, and withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 20, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-15 under Li, in view of Brisimitzakis, Herbach, Kim, and Park, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, Herbach, Kim, and Park.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0158687 A1, to Beauchamp, et al (hereinafter referred to as Beauchamp; newly of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0349210 A1, to Brisimitzakis, et al (hereinafter referred to as Brisimitzakis; previously of record).
As per Claim 1, Beauchamp discloses the features of a device for controlling a speed of an autonomous vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0100], [0123]; where the vehicle may be an autonomous vehicle driving on the road, and the system may include a prescription for applying brakes to slow down or stope the vehicle through use of an advanced driver assistant system (ADAS) of the vehicle), the device comprising:
a receiver (e.g. Paragraphs [0090], [0095], [0177]; where the vehicle (30-1) may include a receiver (330-1), which may receive wavelengths from at least one vulnerable road user (VRU) device (20-1)) configured to
wirelessly receive radar information (e.g. Paragraphs [0057], [0061]; Figure 12; where the collision avoidance involves at least one vehicle (30-1) and at least one pedestrian (10-1), where each pedestrian is associated with a user equipment (UE) terminal (20-1) that emits at least one wave length or reflective capability that may be wireless telecommunications capable) from a portable radar of a target object (e.g. Paragraphs [0057], [0061], [0086]; Figure 1A; where user equipment (UE) terminal may be physically linked to a pedestrian, such as a mobile phone inserted in the pocket of the pedestrian; and a wavelength generator can be implemented in the portable mobile terminal to communicate data and signals, and the spatiotemporal positioning of the VRU may be determined from cellular radio signals; and where a beacon signal (12-1) of a pedestrian, bicycle, motorcycle, wheelchair, scooter, etc., may transmit a beacon or wavelength signal from the VRU device (20-1) of the pedestrian to a nearby vehicle (30-1)),
the target object being separate and distinct from the autonomous vehicle (e.g. Figure 1A; where a pedestrian (10-1) with a UE terminal (20-1) sends signals to a vehicle (30-1));
a processor (e.g. Paragraph [0095]; where the vehicle (30-1) may include a processor (or controller) (310-1), which may be a part of an advanced driver assistant system (ADAS) of the vehicle (30-1)) configured to
determine whether the target object is located in the vicinity of the autonomous vehicle based on the radar information (e.g. Paragraphs [0095], [0131], [0148]-[0149], [0175]; Figures 16, 20, 26-27; where the vehicle (30-1) may receive wavelengths from the VRU device (20-1), and where the VRUs and vehicles are configured to receive and emit a proximity signal; and where the distance to the UE terminal belonging to the vehicle and a UE terminal belonging to a VRU is calculated to determine if the vehicle is within a proximity range of the VRU); and
a controller (e.g. Paragraph [0095]; where the vehicle (30-1) may include a processor (or controller) (310-1), which may be a part of an advanced driver assistant system (ADAS) of the vehicle (30-1)) that
reduces a speed of the autonomous vehicle or stops the autonomous vehicle based on the target object being located in the vicinity of the autonomous vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0093], [0098]; Figures 32-33; where the vehicle (30-1) receives the wavelengths and may control the vehicle (30-1) to stop or slow down or control braking).
Brisimitzakis, in a similar field of endeavor, more explicitly teaches the features of a portable radar of a target object.
Brisimitzakis teaches a method for providing a radar system on a bicycle, where the radar sensor system includes a mobile electronic device (e.g., a bicycle computer, a smart phone, smart watch, head-mounted in-sight display, portable navigation device), which may be mounted to the bicycle or worn by the user, which includes one or more radar units mounted on the bicycle (e.g. Paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for pedestrian-to-vehicle collision avoidance in the system of Beauchamp, with the feature of having a portable radar on another vehicle or object in the system of Brisimitzakis, in order to improve situational awareness of a user (see at least Paragraph [0008] of Brisimitzakis).
As per Claim 6, Beauchamp discloses the features of a system for controlling a speed of an autonomous vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0100], [0123]; where the vehicle may be an autonomous vehicle driving on the road, and the system may include a prescription for applying brakes to slow down or stope the vehicle through use of an advanced driver assistant system (ADAS) of the vehicle), the system comprising:
a portable radar of a target object (e.g. Paragraphs [0057], [0061], [0086]; Figure 1A; where user equipment (UE) terminal may be physically linked to a pedestrian, such as a mobile phone inserted in the pocket of the pedestrian; and a wavelength generator can be implemented in the portable mobile terminal to communicate data and signals, and the spatiotemporal positioning of the VRU may be determined from cellular radio signals; and where a beacon signal (12-1) of a pedestrian, bicycle, motorcycle, wheelchair, scooter, etc., may transmit a beacon or wavelength signal from the VRU device (20-1) of the pedestrian to a nearby vehicle (30-1));
the target object being separate and distinct from the autonomous vehicle (e.g. Figure 1A; where a pedestrian (10-1) with a UE terminal (20-1) sends signals to a vehicle (30-1));
a router (e.g. Paragraph [0123]; where the communications server may include a gateway server) configured to:
wirelessly transmit radar information received from the portable radar to the autonomous vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0057], [0061]; Figure 12; where the collision avoidance involves at least one vehicle (30-1) and at least one pedestrian (10-1), where each pedestrian is associated with a user equipment (UE) terminal (20-1) that emits at least one wave length or reflective capability that may be wireless telecommunications capable); and
a speed controller (e.g. Paragraph [0095]; where the vehicle (30-1) may include a processor (or controller) (310-1), which may be a part of an advanced driver assistant system (ADAS) of the vehicle (30-1)) that:
determines whether the target object is located in the vicinity of the autonomous vehicle based on the radar information received from the router (e.g. Paragraphs [0095], [0131], [0148]-[0149], [0175]; Figures 16, 20, 26-27; where the vehicle (30-1) may receive wavelengths from the VRU device (20-1), and where the VRUs and vehicles are configured to receive and emit a proximity signal; and where the distance to the UE terminal belonging to the vehicle and a UE terminal belonging to a VRU is calculated to determine if the vehicle is within a proximity range of the VRU); and
reduces a speed of the autonomous vehicle or stops the autonomous vehicle based on the target object being located in the vicinity of the autonomous vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0093], [0098]; Figures 32-33; where the vehicle (30-1) receives the wavelengths and may control the vehicle (30-1) to stop or slow down or control braking).
Brisimitzakis, in a similar field of endeavor, more explicitly teaches the features of using a portable radar in a target object; a portable radar configured to transmit radar information.
Brisimitzakis teaches a method for providing a radar system on a bicycle, where the radar sensor system includes a mobile electronic device (e.g., a bicycle computer, a smart phone, smart watch, head-mounted in-sight display, portable navigation device), which may be mounted to the bicycle or worn by the user, which includes one or more radar units mounted on the bicycle (e.g. Paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for pedestrian-to-vehicle collision avoidance in the system of Beauchamp, with the feature of having a portable radar on another vehicle or object in the system of Brisimitzakis, in order to improve situational awareness of a user (see at least Paragraph [0008] of Brisimitzakis).
As per Claim 2, and similarly for Claim 7, Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 6, respectively, and Beauchamp further discloses the features of wherein the radar information includes object information and location information of the target object (e.g. Paragraphs [0060], [0063]-[0064], [0135], [0182]; where the vehicle (30-1) may determine a spatiotemporal positioning of each terminal (20-1) and determine a likely future trajectory of the at least one vehicle (30-1) and the terminal (20-1) of the VRU (10-1); and the spatiotemporal positioning of each user equipment (UE) may be determined by the emitting capability of the device for existing sensors in the vehicle (i.e., positioning information); and where the communications server notification may include a duet comprising the mobile equipment identifier (MEID) of the notified UE terminal belonging to the vehicle and the notified UE terminal belonging to the VRU (i.e., object information)).
As per Claim 3, and similarly for Claim 13, Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, teaches the features of Claims 2 and 7, respectively, and Beauchamp further discloses the features of wherein the processor is configured to calculate a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the target object based on the locations of the autonomous vehicle and the target object (e.g. Paragraphs [0122], [0147]; where the system determines a spatiotemporal distance between any one of the UE terminals of the VRU (10-1) and the UE terminal of the vehicle (30-1) to determine if a VRU is within a proximity range for sending notifications).
As per Claim 4, and similarly for Claim 14, Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, teaches the features of Claims 3 and 13, respectively, and Beauchamp further discloses the features of wherein the controller is configured to reduce the speed of the autonomous vehicle or stop the autonomous vehicle based on the distance between the autonomous vehicle and the target object being less than a reference distance (e.g. Paragraphs [0057], [0093], [0098]; Figures 32-33; where the vehicle (30-1) receives the wavelengths and may control the vehicle (30-1) to stop or slow down or control braking).
As per Claim 8, Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, teaches the features of Claim 6, and Beauchamp further discloses the features of wherein the portable radar is configured to periodically transmit the radar information to the router (e.g. Paragraphs [0098]; where if it is determined that the vehicle (30-1) has not received the emitted wavelengths, the system may repeat the transmission until it is received by the vehicle (30-1)).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, as applied to Claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0274901 A1, to Herbach, et al (hereinafter referred to as Herbach; previously of record).
As per Claim 5, and similarly for Claim 15, Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, teaches the features of Claims 4 and 14, respectively, but the combination of Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, fails to teach every feature of wherein the processor is configured to vary the reference distance depending on an area in which the autonomous vehicle is located.
However, Herbach, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for determining when to pull over an autonomous vehicle, where the threshold distance (T_p) may vary per scenario based on one or more factors including predetermined map data, types of boundaries on the road, the autonomous vehicle’s surrounding environment, such as the width of a road, speed limit, determining if the vehicle is traveling on residential streets, etc. (i.e. area in which the vehicle is located) (e.g. Paragraph [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for pedestrian-to-vehicle collision avoidance in the system of Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, with the feature of varying the distance in the system of Herbach, in order to enable the vehicle to plan its path and pull over so as to avoid obstacles (see at least Paragraph [0106] of Herbach).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0009161 A1, to Kim, et al (hereinafter referred to as Kim; previously of record).
As per Claim 9, Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, teaches the features of Claim 6, and Beauchamp further discloses the features of receive the radar information from the portable radar based on the location of the target object in the allocated area (e.g. Paragraphs [0081], [0149]; Figure 16; where the number of VRUs (20) and a number of vehicles (30) in a geographic area may be located within a specific geographic area, and selected VRUs and vehicles in the area may be requested to send past and current spatiotemporal data, and may also receive radar, sonar, lidar, etc., signals from a pedestrian to help the pedestrian become more visible).
Kim, in a similar field of endeavor, more explicitly teaches the features of wherein the router is configured to be allocated to each of a plurality of areas.
Kim teaches a method for providing a path for an autonomous vehicle based on locations of other objects, where the repeater may be allocated to perform communication by region or for a specific region, or each repeater may be allocated to different areas to perform communications with vehicles in each area (e.g. Paragraphs [0031], [0635]-[0636], [0646]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for pedestrian-to-vehicle collision avoidance in the system of Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, with the feature allocating areas for each route in the system of Kim, in order to improve real-time processing of data and communications (see at least Paragraph [0649] of Kim).
As per Claim 10, Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis and Kim, teaches the features of Claim 9, and Kim further teaches the features of wherein the router is configured to share the radar information received from the portable radar with neighboring routers.
Kim teaches a method for providing a path for an autonomous vehicle based on locations of other objects, where the telecommunication control unit (TCU, 810) may include a telecommunication control unit to receive, exchanging, or share information, such as traffic conditions, while communicating with road infrastructures and other vehicles during driving, and where the repeaters may relay communication between the server and the vehicles in different areas (e.g. Paragraphs [0316], [0634]; Figure 18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for pedestrian-to-vehicle collision avoidance in the system of Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, with the feature sharing the information in the system of Kim, in order to improve real-time processing of data and communications (see at least Paragraph [0649] of Kim).
As per Claim 11, Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis and Kim, teaches the features of Claim 10, and Beauchamp further discloses the features of wherein the router is configured to transmit the radar information to the autonomous vehicle based on the location of the autonomous vehicle in the allocated area (e.g. Paragraphs [0123]-[0124], [0131]; where the system determines whether the spatiotemporal distance between any one of the UE terminals is within a proximity range, and a communications server notification is transmitted if the UE terminal belonging to a vehicle and a UE terminal belonging to a VRU, are determined to be in the spatiotemporal trajectory prediction).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0331692 A1, to Park, et al (hereinafter referred to as Park; previously of record).
As per Claim 12, Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, teaches the features of Claim 8, and but the combination of the Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, fails to teach every feature of wherein the portable radar is configured to vary a transmission period of the radar information depending on an area in which the target object is located.
However, Park, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for transmitting sensing information for an automated vehicle, where a transmission period may vary according to a distance to an object and degree of danger detected around the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0288], [0304]-[0305]).
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for pedestrian-to-vehicle collision avoidance in the system of Beauchamp, in view of Brisimitzakis, with the feature of varying a transmission period in the system of Park, in order to improve accuracy of the sensing information (see at least Paragraph [0288] of Park).
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 MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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 Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights