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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on October 31, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY INFORMATION.
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.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a machine and a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of recognize a pedestrian from the image data; and analyze pedestrian safety associated with the recognition of the pedestrian; and generate pedestrian safety information to a vehicle terminal as recited in independent claims 1 and 11.
The steps fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.’’).
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
In addition, limitations reciting data gathering such as “receive image data and traffic signal information from an external device” are also insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the limitation “transmit pedestrian safety information to a vehicle terminal” merely uses generic computing components (“navigation server”) but also constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: system, analysis server and navigation server do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, ¶¶ 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1081), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1078), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
As for dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the invention of the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-12, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim, US 2021/0078598 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a system for providing safety information, the system comprising:
an analysis server (Kim, see at least ¶ [0264] “According to the present invention, the vehicle 100 may generate pedestrian information using an AI processor thereof. Further, the vehicle 100 of the present invention is connected to an external device, for example, a server 2000 through V2N communication to receive pedestrian information obtained from an AI learning result of the server 200 and to send the pedestrian information to another vehicle OB11.”) configured to:
receive image data (Kim, see at least ¶ [0274] “After recognizing the pedestrian and capturing a pedestrian image, the vehicles 100 and OB11 may transmit the pedestrian image to the server 2000 through a network.”) and traffic signal information from an external device; (Kim, see at least ¶ [0163] “The traffic sign may include a traffic light OB15, a traffic sign plate OB14, and a pattern or text painted on a road surface.”)
recognize a pedestrian from the image data; (Kim, see at least ¶ [0274] “The server 2000 may analyze the pedestrian image based on the AI learning result to determine a pedestrian type and transmit the pedestrian type to the vehicles 100 and OB11 approaching a road around the pedestrian.”) and
analyze pedestrian safety associated with the recognition of the pedestrian in view of the traffic signal information; (Kim, see at least ¶ [0275] “The pedestrian type includes a pedestrian's age, sex, and status. The pedestrian status may be classified into a pedestrian with a load, a pedestrian accompanied by a baby carriage, a wheelchair, and a guide dog for a visually impaired person, or a fallen pedestrian. The pedestrian type may be used as an indicator for determining a walking vulnerable person such as infants, pregnant women, the disabled, and the elderly.”) and
a navigation server configured to generate and transmit pedestrian safety information to a vehicle terminal based on the analysis of the pedestrian safety the pedestrian safety information being output from the analysis server. (Kim, see at least ¶ [0277] “When the controller 170 of the vehicles 100 and OB11 receives a pedestrian location and a pedestrian type while driving in a direction approaching the pedestrian, the controller 170 may control the brake drive unit 622 to decelerate a driving speed.)
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches a system for providing safety information, wherein the navigation server is configured to:
collect forward image data of a vehicle being transmitted from the vehicle terminal; (Kim, see at least ¶ [0173] “The camera 310 may be disposed near a front windshield in the vehicle 100 in order to acquire images of the front of the vehicle 100.”) and
transmit the collected forward image data to the analysis server; (Kim, see at least ¶ [0274] “After recognizing the pedestrian and capturing a pedestrian image, the vehicles 100 and OB11 may transmit the pedestrian image to the server 2000 through a network.”)
wherein the vehicle terminal is configured to obtain the forward image data of the vehicle using a camera mounted on the vehicle. (Kim, see at least ¶ [0173] “The camera 310 may be disposed near a front windshield in the vehicle 100 in order to acquire images of the front of the vehicle 100.”)
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches a system for providing safety information, wherein the analysis server is configured to determine whether there is a pedestrian in the image data using a pedestrian discrimination model. (Kim, see at least ¶ [00274] “The server 2000 may analyze the pedestrian image based on the AI learning result to determine a pedestrian type and transmit the pedestrian type to the vehicles 100 and OB11 approaching a road around the pedestrian.”)
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a system for providing safety information, wherein the navigation server is configured to: generate guidance information for providing guidance on vehicle behavior control for the pedestrian safety based on the analysis of the pedestrian safety; and transmit the generated guidance information to the vehicle terminal. (Kim, see at least ¶ [0278] “The controller 170 of the vehicles 100 and OB11 may adjust a braking force according to a distance to the pedestrian OB12. When the pedestrian location is within a predetermined distance, the controller 170 of the vehicles 100 and OB11 may lower a driving speed and stop the vehicles 100 and OB11 before the pedestrian OB12 starts to cross a crosswalk.”)
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches a system for providing safety information, wherein the navigation server is configured to: generate a route for reaching a destination from a starting point depending on a route navigation request transmitted from the vehicle terminal; (Kim, see at least ¶ [0122] “ The vehicle driving information may include a current location of the vehicle 100 on a route to a destination, a type, a location, and a movement of an object existing at a periphery of the vehicle 100, and whether there is a lane detected at a periphery of the vehicle 100. Further, the vehicle driving information may represent driving information of another vehicle 100, a space in which stop is available at a periphery of the vehicle 100, a possibility in which the vehicle and the object may collide, pedestrian or bike information detected at a periphery of the vehicle 100, road information, a signal status at a periphery of the vehicle 100, and a movement of the vehicle 100.”) obtain traffic signal information in the route; and transmit the route in conjunction with the traffic signal information in the route to the vehicle terminal. (Kim, see at least ¶ [0122])
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches a system for providing safety information wherein the vehicle terminal is configured to transmit the pedestrian safety information to an output device. (Kim, see at least ¶ [0281] “The vehicles 100 and OB11 may search for the vehicles 100 and OB11 closest to the pedestrian OB12 through V2V communication (S175). When the pedestrian OB12 approaches or crosses the road, the vehicles 100 and OB11 closest to the pedestrian OB12 may output an advancing direction and an estimated crossing time of the pedestrian OB12 on the display based on an AI determination result (S176). Further, the vehicles 100 and OB11 may transmit walking guide information to the pedestrian terminal 1000. The pedestrian terminal 1000 may display a current location, whether road crossing is available, and an estimated crossing time on the display according to walking guide information and output such information as a vibration (haptic).”)
Claim 11 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 12 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim 14 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claim 18 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claim 19 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Claim 20 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 10 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, US 2021/0078598 A1 in view of Han et al., KR 20240000068 A.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches a system for providing safety information. Kim does not specifically teach the following. However, Han teaches wherein the analysis server is configured to:
receive image data obtained by an infrastructure installed on a roadside; (Han, see at least page 6 ¶ 9 “Referring to FIG. 3, the processor 120 can acquire real-time images of the roadway and walking (S210). Specifically, the processor 120 acquires real-time images of the area where the traffic safety device 100 is deployed through the camera subsystem 170, or other traffic safety devices 100 and the control server through the communication module 152. Real-time images can be acquired from any one device/server of 200 and the imaging device 300.”) and
receive the traffic signal information from a traffic signal operating system. (Han, see at least page 6 ¶ 10 “In various embodiments, the processor 120 may request different types of real-time images from the control server 200 according to the result of detecting an object in the real-time image acquired through the camera subsystem 170. For example, if the object detected by the processor 120 is a vehicle, the processor 120 may request real-time images of pedestrians placed adjacent to the device to the control server 200 to generate traffic safety information.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim with those of Han as both relate to devices that provides traffic safety information and a method and system for controlling it to prevent traffic safety accidents that occur in the blind spots of pedestrians and vehicles. (Han, see at least page 2 Description ¶ 2) In addition, this would be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches a system for providing safety information. Kim does not specifically teach the following. However, Han teaches wherein the analysis server is configured to determine whether there is a need for pedestrian caution based on traffic signal information, and whether there is a pedestrian at an intersection based on a direction of progress of a vehicle. (Kim, see at least page 4 last ¶ “The traffic safety device 100 is installed in spaces where the visibility of drivers and pedestrians may be limited or their attention may be reduced, such as intersections, hills, shoulders, and unprotected lanes, and can provide traffic safety information to drivers and pedestrians. Specifically, the traffic safety device 100 can detect pedestrians or vehicles in real-time images of a roadway or a pedestrian. For example, the traffic safety device 100 is a device configured to output the presence or absence of a vehicle trying to move in the direction where the pedestrian is located (e.g., right-turn crosswalk area, blind spot area) by inputting a frame of the image of the roadway. 1 Vehicles can be detected using a detection model. For another example, the traffic safety device 100 can detect pedestrians using a second detection model configured to output the presence or absence of a pedestrian who wants to move in the direction of the crosswalk/roadway by using a frame of an image of a pedestrian as an input. You can.”) ( see claim 3 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.)
Claim 13 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claim 16 is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights