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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: imaging unit, communication unit, notification unit, detection unit and control unit in claims 1 and 3-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saez et al (11,120,279)
Regarding claim 1 Saez discloses,
An imaging unit (note fig. 1 block 112);
A communication unit (note fig. 1, block 144);
A notification unit (note fig. 1, block 106) ; and
A control unit (note fig. 1, block 108), wherein the control unit is configured to
when a pedestrian near a road is detected from a video from the imaging unit (note col. 5 lines 23-24 pedestrian detected and col. 6 lines 6-11 information acquiring unit),
receive vehicle information from an information processing device via the communication unit (note col. 5 lines 25-26, establish communication link with pedestrian portable device)
the vehicle information including relative position information between a first vehicle that is an autonomous vehicle approaching the roadside device and a second vehicle located around the first vehicle (note col. 10 lines 27-47, estimates distances to environmental features while scanning through a scene) and cause the notification unit to notify the pedestrian of notification information including the relative position information (note col. 5 lines 45-50, visual notification operation unit and col. 8 lines 64- col. 9 lines 2).
Regarding claim 4 Saez discloses,
Wherein the control unit is further configured to send pedestrian information on the pedestrian detected from the video from the imaging unit to a mobile terminal carried by a driver or an assistant driver of the first vehicle through the information processing device via the communication unit (note col. 5 lines 57- col. 6 lines 6, wireless communication, the wireless-communication establishing unit 110 detects the approaching portable device 140, and performs a pairing process using the communicating unit).
Regarding claim 5 Saez discloses,
Wherein the vehicle information is corrected by the information processing device based on information on the first vehicle and the second vehicle detected from the video from the imaging unit (note col. 10 lines 48-53, information acquiring unit, analyzes images).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saez et al (11,120,279) in view of Zheng et al (11,346,959).
Regarding claim 2 Saez discloses, relative position information. Saez does not clearly disclose
relative position information includes information indicating the number of the first vehicles and the second vehicles, information identifying that the first vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, and information indicating a position of the first vehicle with respect to the second vehicle as viewed from the roadside device. Zheng discloses relative position information includes information indicating the number of the first vehicles and the second vehicles, information identifying that the first vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, and information indicating a position of the first vehicle with respect to the second vehicle as viewed from the roadside device (note col. 20 lines 8-24, roadside device, operate traffic control unit which may be configured to process data received from vehicles). Saez and Zheng are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, relative position information includes information indicating the number of the first vehicles and the second vehicles, information identifying that the first vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, and information indicating a position of the first vehicle with respect to the second vehicle as viewed from the roadside device, in the system of Saez as evidenced by Zheng. The suggestion/motivation for doing so provides relative distance enabling vehicles to optimize times and distances for safe inter-vehicle spacing and maneuvers (note col. 1 lines 47-49). It would have been obvious to combine Zheng with Saez to obtain the invention as specified by claim 2.
Regarding claim 3 Saez and Zheng discloses,
wherein: the second vehicle is detected by a detection unit of the first vehicle; and the relative position information is calculated by a control unit of the information processing device based on information on the first vehicle and the second vehicle received by the information processing device from the first vehicle (note Zhneg, col. 20 lines 8-24)
Related Prior Art
Yoshikawa et al (11,783,709) the vehicle information including relative position information between a first vehicle that is an autonomous vehicle approaching the roadside device and a second vehicle located around the first vehicle (note col. 4 lines 10-15 managing traffic information).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
G.D.
June 23, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights