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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-5 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-023073, filed on 02/19/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/22/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the recited limitation of “a plurality of items relating to approach of an autonomous vehicle” is indefinite. The term “item(s)” is not defined by the claim and it is unclear what may or may not qualify as an item (e.g., speed, distance, direction, intent to stop, color/made & model of the autonomous vehicle, or something else) from the teachings of the specification which does not provide reasonably certainty to what the metes and bounds of “areas that make automated driving possible” might be. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
Regarding Claim 1, the recited limitation of “notify the pedestrian of all the items when the following vehicle is not present, and notify the pedestrian of a part of the items when there is at least one following vehicle” is indefinite due to internally logically inconsistency and contradictory, and its lacks objective boundary. The claim requires the pedestrian to receive more information when no following vehicle is present than when a following vehicle is present, which is illogical because safety reasoning normally would dictate more information when more vehicles are present, not less. Further, it is unclear how a part of the items” is chosen? Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite. For purpose of examining, Examiner is interpreting the claim limitation to be “notify the pedestrian that crossing is permitted with information of an approaching autonomous vehicle when no following vehicle is detected behind the autonomous vehicle, and does not notify the pedestrian that crossing is permitted if other vehicle other than the approaching autonomous vehicle is detected.”
The dependent claims 2-5 that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shun (JP2023050629A_English Translation) in view of Morimura (US 2019/0344706 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shun teaches A roadside device comprising a control unit and provided at a position where a pedestrian crosses a road (see at least Abstract Fig. 1), wherein the control unit is configured to:
acquire information including a plurality of items relating to approach of an autonomous vehicle approaching the position and information indicating whether there is at least one vehicle following the autonomous vehicle (see at least Fig. 1-14 [0017-0090]: The notification system 100 monitors the detection area and grasps the behavior of the automatically driven vehicle (e.g. information indicating current position and its own future position/travel schedule including the predicted arrival time of the automatically driven VE at the crosswalk.) As illustrated in the Figures, the notification system communicates with a rear vehicle GM (e.g. manual or automatically driven vehicle) that is explicitly disclosed as being located behind the autonomous vehicle, the roadside system inherently (even if not expressly stated) acquires information indicating whether at least one vehicle is following the autonomous vehicle.); and
notify the pedestrian of all the items when the following vehicle is not present, and notify the pedestrian of a part of the items when there is at least one following vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1-14 [0017-0090]: the second display panel DSβ displays to the pedestrian who is about to cross the pedestrian crossing CW or the pedestrian who is actually starting to cross the pedestrian crossing, the behavior of the approaching automatically driven vehicle. )
it may be alleged that Shun does not explicitly teach notify the pedestrian of all the items when the following vehicle is not present, and notify the pedestrian of a part of the items when there is at least one following vehicle.
Morimura is directed to autonomous vehicle providing information to a crossing pedestrian, Morimura teaches notify the pedestrian of all the items when the following vehicle is not present, and notify the pedestrian of a part of the items when there is at least one following vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1-5 [0031-0058]: The notification control unit performs notification of traveling information indicating the autonomous vehicle will continue to travel without being stop or will start to move when the approaching vehicle is detected. The traveling information is information including an intention of the host vehicle V not to make way for the moving person, for example, the notification of the traveling information may be an operation of displaying letters such as “vehicle will pass without being stopped”, “vehicle will start to move”, “vehicle is passing without being stopped”, “vehicle is starting to move”, or the like on the notification unit. The notification unit performs vehicle stoppage information when no approaching vehicle is detected wherein the vehicle stoppage information indicating vehicle intention to make way for the pedestrian such as “vehicle will be stopped.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shun’s roadside infrastructural notification system that notifies information corresponding to behavior of the automatically driven vehicle to incorporate the technique of notifying the pedestrian that the autonomous vehicle will make way for pedestrian when no approaching vehicle is detected and the autonomous vehicle will not make way for pedestrian when approaching vehicle is detected as taught by Morimura with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would improve reliability and visibility of pedestrian notifications to enhance pedestrian safety.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Shun in view of Morimura teaches The roadside device according to claim 1, wherein:
it may be alleged that Shun does not explicitly teach the information indicating there is at least one following vehicle includes a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the following vehicle; and
the control unit notifies the pedestrian of a part of the items when the following vehicle is present and the distance is less than a predetermined value.
Morimura is directed to autonomous vehicle providing information to a crossing pedestrian, Morimura teaches the information indicating there is at least one following vehicle includes a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the following vehicle; (see at least Fig. 1-5 [0031-0058]: the approaching vehicle detecting unit detects another vehicle approaching the autonomous vehicle. The expression “approach” means approach in which a distance between the moving person and other vehicle equals to or smaller than a predetermined distance.) and
the control unit notifies the pedestrian of a part of the items when the following vehicle is present and the distance is less than a predetermined value. (see at least Fig. 1-5 [0031-0058]: The notification control unit performs notification of traveling information indicating the autonomous vehicle will continue to travel without being stop or will start to move when the approaching vehicle is detected. The traveling information is information including an intention of the host vehicle V not to make way for the moving person, for example, the notification of the traveling information may be an operation of displaying letters such as “vehicle will pass without being stopped”, “vehicle will start to move”, “vehicle is passing without being stopped”, “vehicle is starting to move”, or the like on the notification unit. The notification unit performs vehicle stoppage information when no approaching vehicle is detected wherein the vehicle stoppage information indicating vehicle intention to make way for the pedestrian such as “vehicle will be stopped”.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shun’s roadside infrastructural notification system that notifies information corresponding to behavior of the automatically driven vehicle to incorporate the technique of notifying the pedestrian that the autonomous vehicle will make way for pedestrian when no approaching vehicle is detected within a predetermined distance and the autonomous vehicle will not make way for pedestrian when approaching vehicle is detected within a predetermined distance as taught by Morimura with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would improve reliability and visibility of pedestrian notifications to enhance pedestrian safety.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shun in view of Morimura and Shino et al. (US 2021/0217304 A1 hereinafter Shino).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Shun in view of Morimura teaches The roadside device according to claim 1, wherein:
Shun further discloses a second display panel DSβ installed facing the pedestrian crossing that displays to pedestrian whether pedestrian crossing is possible and calculating predicted arrival time of the autonomous vehicle to the crosswalk (see at least Fig. 1-14 [0017-0090]), Shun does not explicitly teach the items relating to the approach of the autonomous vehicle include a remaining distance to be traveled before the autonomous vehicle arrives at the position as an item; and
the control unit notifies the pedestrian of the items other than the remaining distance when the following vehicle is present.
Morimura is directed to autonomous vehicle providing information to a crossing pedestrian, Morimura teaches the control unit notifies the pedestrian of the items other than the remaining distance when the following vehicle is present. (see at least Fig. 1-5 [0031-0058]: The notification control unit performs notification of traveling information indicating the autonomous vehicle will continue to travel without being stop or will start to move when the approaching vehicle is detected. The traveling information is information including an intention of the host vehicle V not to make way for the moving person, for example, the notification of the traveling information may be an operation of displaying letters such as “vehicle will pass without being stopped”, “vehicle will start to move”, “vehicle is passing without being stopped”, “vehicle is starting to move”, or the like on the notification unit. The notification unit performs vehicle stoppage information when no approaching vehicle is detected wherein the vehicle stoppage information indicating vehicle intention to make way for the pedestrian such as “vehicle will be stopped.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shun’s roadside infrastructural notification system that notifies information corresponding to behavior of the automatically driven vehicle to incorporate the technique of notifying the pedestrian that the autonomous vehicle will make way for pedestrian when no approaching vehicle is detected and the autonomous vehicle will not make way for pedestrian when approaching vehicle is detected as taught by Morimura with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would improve reliability and visibility of pedestrian notifications to enhance pedestrian safety.
The combination of Shun in view of Morimura does not explicitly teach the items relating to the approach of the autonomous vehicle include a remaining distance to be traveled before the autonomous vehicle arrives at the position as an item;
Shino is directed to system and method for notifying a pedestrian of the approach of autonomous vehicle and whether pedestrian crossing is permitted, Shino teaches the items relating to the approach of the autonomous vehicle include a remaining distance to be traveled before the autonomous vehicle arrives at the position as an item; (see at least Fig. 1, 3A-8C [0031-0110]: Image IM is displayed on the road surface where the IM include a message reporting the required time for arrival Tra which is the time required for the host vehicle to arrive at the predicted crossing point and Me area indicating the fact that the vehicle will stop or pass at the crossing point. Although the required time for arrival display area 402 displays the required time for arrival Tra, the distance La-Lc between the crosswalk CW (predicted crossing point) and the vehicle MV may be displayed.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Shun and Morimura to incorporate the technique of displaying a remaining time and/or distance of the autonomous vehicle to the crosswalk and a message indicating whether the autonomous vehicle will stop for the pedestrian as taught by Shino with reasonable expectation of success would improve pedestrian safety by providing clear intent communication and increased trust and acceptance of AVs so the pedestrian can see what the AV is about to do.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Shun in view of Morimura teaches The roadside device according to claim 1, wherein:
Shun further discloses a second display panel DSβ installed facing the pedestrian crossing that displays to pedestrian whether pedestrian crossing is possible and calculating predicted arrival time of the autonomous vehicle to the crosswalk (see at least Fig. 1-14 [0017-0090]), Shun does not explicitly teach the items relating to the approach of the autonomous vehicle include a remaining time to be traveled before the autonomous vehicle arrives at the position as an item; and
the control unit notifies the pedestrian of the items other than the remaining distance when the following vehicle is present.
Morimura is directed to autonomous vehicle providing information to a crossing pedestrian, Morimura teaches the control unit notifies the pedestrian of the items other than the remaining time when the following vehicle is present. (see at least Fig. 1-5 [0031-0058]: The notification control unit performs notification of traveling information indicating the autonomous vehicle will continue to travel without being stop or will start to move when the approaching vehicle is detected. The traveling information is information including an intention of the host vehicle V not to make way for the moving person, for example, the notification of the traveling information may be an operation of displaying letters such as “vehicle will pass without being stopped”, “vehicle will start to move”, “vehicle is passing without being stopped”, “vehicle is starting to move”, or the like on the notification unit. The notification unit performs vehicle stoppage information when no approaching vehicle is detected wherein the vehicle stoppage information indicating vehicle intention to make way for the pedestrian such as “vehicle will be stopped.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shun’s roadside infrastructural notification system that notifies information corresponding to behavior of the automatically driven vehicle to incorporate the technique of notifying the pedestrian that the autonomous vehicle will make way for pedestrian when no approaching vehicle is detected and the autonomous vehicle will not make way for pedestrian when approaching vehicle is detected as taught by Morimura with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would improve reliability and visibility of pedestrian notifications to enhance pedestrian safety.
The combination of Shun in view of Morimura does not explicitly teach the items relating to the approach of the autonomous vehicle include a remaining distance to be traveled before the autonomous vehicle arrives at the position as an item;
Shino is directed to system and method for notifying a pedestrian of the approach of autonomous vehicle and whether pedestrian crossing is permitted, Shino teaches the items relating to the approach of the autonomous vehicle include a remaining distance to be traveled before the autonomous vehicle arrives at the position as an item; (see at least Fig. 1, 3A-8C [0031-0110]: Image IM is displayed on the road surface where the IM include a message reporting the required time for arrival Tra which is the time required for the host vehicle to arrive at the predicted crossing point and Me area indicating the fact that the vehicle will stop or pass at the crossing point. Although the required time for arrival display area 402 displays the required time for arrival Tra, the distance La-Lc between the crosswalk CW (predicted crossing point) and the vehicle MV may be displayed.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Shun and Morimura to incorporate the technique of displaying a remaining time and/or distance of the autonomous vehicle to the crosswalk and a message indicating whether the autonomous vehicle will stop for the pedestrian as taught by Shino with reasonable expectation of success would improve pedestrian safety by providing clear intent communication and increased trust and acceptance of AVs so the pedestrian can see what the AV is about to do.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shun in view of Morimura and Peddie et al. (US2009/0256723 A1 hereinafter Peddie).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shun in view of Morimura teaches The roadside device according to claim 1, wherein:
Shun further discloses a second display panel DSβ installed facing the pedestrian crossing that displays to pedestrian whether pedestrian crossing is possible and calculating predicted arrival time of the autonomous vehicle to the crosswalk (see at least Fig. 1-14 [0017-0090]), Shun does not explicitly teach the items relating to the approach of the autonomous vehicle include a direction from which the autonomous vehicle comes toward the position as an item; and
the control unit notifies the pedestrian of the items other than the direction when the following vehicle is present.
Morimura is directed to autonomous vehicle providing information to a crossing pedestrian, Morimura teaches the control unit notifies the pedestrian of the items other than the direction when the following vehicle is present. (see at least Fig. 1-5 [0031-0058]: The notification control unit performs notification of traveling information indicating the autonomous vehicle will continue to travel without being stop or will start to move when the approaching vehicle is detected. The traveling information is information including an intention of the host vehicle V not to make way for the moving person, for example, the notification of the traveling information may be an operation of displaying letters such as “vehicle will pass without being stopped”, “vehicle will start to move”, “vehicle is passing without being stopped”, “vehicle is starting to move”, or the like on the notification unit. The notification unit performs vehicle stoppage information when no approaching vehicle is detected wherein the vehicle stoppage information indicating vehicle intention to make way for the pedestrian such as “vehicle will be stopped.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shun’s roadside infrastructural notification system that notifies information corresponding to behavior of the automatically driven vehicle to incorporate the technique of notifying the pedestrian that the autonomous vehicle will make way for pedestrian when no approaching vehicle is detected and the autonomous vehicle will not make way for pedestrian when approaching vehicle is detected as taught by Morimura with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would improve reliability and visibility of pedestrian notifications to enhance pedestrian safety.
The combination of Shun in view of Morimura does not explicitly teach the items relating to the approach of the autonomous vehicle include a direction from which the autonomous vehicle comes toward the position as an item;
Peddie is directed to system and devices related to road mounted indicators for providing visual indicators to approaching traffic, Peddie teaches the items relating to the approach of the autonomous vehicle include a direction from which the autonomous vehicle comes toward the position as an item; (see at least [0211-0225]: One or more traffic visual indicator devices receive communication from a traffic controller at the approach of an on-call emergency vehicle using a pre-empter to proceed through a traffic signal. By tying communication to surface mounted traffic visual indicator devices to a controller inserted to an existing traffic controller, pedestrians and motorists may see that an impending emergency vehicle approaches them and the direction with which it comes. Examiner notes that the autonomous vehicles of Shun have communication capabilities (e.g. V2I, V2X) to various information to the roadside equipment, thus, the addition of collecting approach related information from autonomous vehicle merely involves collecting additional known data field in the communicated information. )
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Shun and Morimura to incorporate the technique of communicating vehicle’s direction of approach information on a visual indicator to other road users as taught by Peddie with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would improve pedestrian situational awareness and improving pedestrian safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667