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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto (Japanese Patent Application Pub. No. 2018-022304) in view of Murai (Japanese Patent Application Pub. No. 2019-204241), and further in view of Ikehara, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0090010) and Hwang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0386092).
Regarding Claim 1, Iwamoto teaches: A roadside apparatus (Iwamoto, Para. 0014, 0064-0066 – a “traffic system” including a “roadside communication device” installed “on the roadside”, for example, in a “zone 30” at “an intersection”) comprising:
an imager (Iwamoto, Para. 0066-0069 – “multiple sensors 5” including “an image sensor”, for example “a camera installed on the road”);
a notification interface (Iwamoto, Para. 0066 – “a roadside communication device”); and
a controller (Iwamoto, Para. 0072 – the “roadside communication device” including a “control unit”) configured to:
acquire a time distance from an calculating “the estimated arrival time”, or time distance, of a speeding vehicle “at the intersection” based on “speed information and location information of the vehicle”) when a pedestrian heading toward a roadway has been detected (Iwamoto, Para. 0130, 0154-0161 – wherein determining “the estimated arrival time” of a speeding vehicle occurs “only when it is determined that [a] wireless terminal device 6a is located within zone 30”; where the “wireless terminal device” is carried by a “pedestrian”)
notify the “the in-vehicle communication device 20” can “display or notify by sound” that a “pedestrian 6 is within zone 30”) and/or notify the pedestrian of second information indicating a restriction on crossing the roadway, via the notification interface (Iwamoto, Para. 0023, 0142, 0153-0155 – “the wireless terminal device can be controlled to display on its display unit that a speeding vehicle is driving within the area, or to notify pedestrians with sound” to alert pedestrians of “approaching speeding vehicles” within the zone 30; where the “roadside communication device” communicates information to the “wireless terminal device” in order to perform “a notification process”), in a case in which the acquired time distance is less than a threshold (Iwamoto, Para. 0130, 0154-0161 – where the “roadside communication device” determines a vehicle having a “shorter” determined “estimated time of arrival”, or threshold, indicating “a speeding vehicle is driving within the area”, and signals “the wireless terminal device” to notify pedestrians)
While Iwamoto teaches an imager, Iwamoto does not teach when a pedestrian heading toward a roadway has been detected from a video captured by the imager. Additionally, Iwamoto does not teach specifically teach an automated driving vehicle, and a threshold determined according to an external environment, wherein the notification interface includes a signal light capable of switching a flashing speed of light between a first speed and a second speed higher than the first speed, and the controller notifies the pedestrian of the second information by switching the flashing speed according to the time distance.
However, Murai teaches when a pedestrian heading toward a roadway has been detected from a video captured by the imager (Murai, Para. 0009, 0023, 0031 – “a road equipped with a camera”, where an “image recognition unit” recognizes “pedestrians” captured in “images” by the camera; where video is a plurality of images), and a threshold determined according to an external environment (Murai, Para. 0050, 0054-0055 – determining a “vehicle's arrival time”, where if the vehicle’s arrival time is “less than or equal to the pedestrian's crossing time”, or a time distance threshold, “notify the vehicle” or “notify the pedestrian”; where the pedestrian “crossing time”, or the threshold, is determined based on the pedestrian’s “current walking speed” and is corrected based on “the weather and road surface conditions”, or the external environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roadside apparatus of Iwamoto to include when a pedestrian heading toward a roadway has been detected from a video captured by the imager, and a threshold determined according to an external environment, as taught by Murai, in order to improve the safety of pedestrians and vehicles by accounting for environmental conditions.
Iwamoto in view of Murai does not teach wherein the notification interface includes a signal light capable of switching a flashing speed of light between a first speed and a second speed higher than the first speed, and the controller notifies the pedestrian of the second information by switching the flashing speed according to the time distance. Additionally, Iwamoto in view of Murai does not teach specifically teach an automated driving vehicle.
However, Ikehara teaches wherein the notification interface includes a signal light capable of switching a flashing speed of light between a first speed and a second speed higher than the first speed, and the controller notifies the pedestrian of the second information by switching the flashing speed according to the time distance (Ikehara, Para. 0045-0046, 0063, 0118 – “notifier 20 performs notification which increases an output amount of the predetermined output (increases the brightness level of light, for example), or increases a rate of variation in the predetermined output (increase a blinking rate of light, for example), with decreasing difference (D12−D11) between second distance D12 of two-wheel vehicle P12 to sensor 10 and first distance D11 of pedestrian to sensor 10, which are measured by sensor 10”, such that “pedestrian P11 more easily notices the notification performed by notifier 20, and be more easily aware that a dangerous moving object is gradually approaching to pedestrian P11”, such that there is a first blinking rate at a first distance and a second blinking rate at a decreased distance; where further, “a time at which two moving objects will collide” is determined and “a manner of output may be varied prior to the time of collision”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the roadside apparatus including the above limitations of Iwamoto in view of Murai to include wherein the notification interface includes a signal light capable of switching a flashing speed of light between a first speed and a second speed higher than the first speed, and the controller notifies the pedestrian of the second information by switching the flashing speed according to the time distance, as taught by Ikehara, in order to improve pedestrian safety, such that the pedestrian “more easily notices the notification” and can be “more easily aware that a dangerous moving object is gradually approaching” (Ikehara, Para. 0045).
Iwamoto in view of Murai and Ikehara does not teach specifically teach an automated driving vehicle.
However, Hwang teaches an automated driving vehicle (Hwang, Para. 0011, 0023 – where “a vehicle may be semi-automated or fully automated” and receives “a warning signal notifying nearby vehicles of presence and danger of a pedestrian on a road”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the roadside apparatus including the above limitations of Iwamoto in view of Murai and Ikehara to include an automated driving vehicle, as taught by Hwang, in order to improve the safety of pedestrians by notifying an automated driving vehicle of a collision risk (Hwang, Para. 0220, 0236).
Regarding Claim 5, Iwamoto teaches: A notification method (Iwamoto, Para. 0006 – “a communication method”) performed by a roadside apparatus (Iwamoto, Para. 0006, 0014, 0064-0066 – a “traffic system” including a “roadside communication device” installed “on the roadside”, for example, in a “zone 30” at “an intersection”, performing the “communication method”), the notification method comprising:
acquiring a time distance from an calculating “the estimated arrival time”, or time distance, of a speeding vehicle “at the intersection” based on “speed information and location information of the vehicle”) when a pedestrian heading toward a roadway has been detected (Iwamoto, Para. 0130, 0154-0161 – wherein determining “the estimated arrival time” of a speeding vehicle occurs “only when it is determined that [a] wireless terminal device 6a is located within zone 30”; where the “wireless terminal device” is carried by a “pedestrian”)
notifying the “the in-vehicle communication device 20” can “display or notify by sound” that a “pedestrian 6 is within zone 30”) and/or notifying the pedestrian of second information indicating a restriction on crossing the roadway, in a case in which the acquired time distance is less than a threshold (Iwamoto, Para. 0130, 0154-0161 – where the “roadside communication device” determines a vehicle having a “shorter” determined “estimated time of arrival”, or threshold, indicating “a speeding vehicle is driving within the area”, and signals “the wireless terminal device” to notify pedestrians)
Iwamoto does not teach when a pedestrian heading toward a roadway has been detected from a captured video. Additionally, Iwamoto does not teach specifically teach an automated driving vehicle, and a threshold determined according to an external environment, wherein the roadside apparatus includes a signal light capable of switching a flashing speed of light between a first speed and a second speed higher than the first speed, and the notification method further comprises: notifying the pedestrian of the second information by switching the flashing speed according to the time distance.
However, Murai teaches when a pedestrian heading toward a roadway has been detected from a captured video (Murai, Para. 0009, 0023, 0031 – “a road equipped with a camera”, where an “image recognition unit” recognizes “pedestrians” captured in “images” by the camera; where video is a plurality of images), and a threshold determined according to an external environment (Murai, Para. 0050, 0054-0055 – determining a “vehicle's arrival time”, where if the vehicle’s arrival time is “less than or equal to the pedestrian's crossing time”, or a time distance threshold, “notify the vehicle” or “notify the pedestrian”; where the pedestrian “crossing time”, or the threshold, is determined based on the pedestrian’s “current walking speed” and is corrected based on “the weather and road surface conditions”, or the external environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the notification method of Iwamoto to include when a pedestrian heading toward a roadway has been detected from a captured video, and a threshold determined according to an external environment, as taught by Murai, in order to improve the safety of pedestrians and vehicles by accounting for environmental conditions.
Iwamoto in view of Murai does not teach wherein the roadside apparatus includes a signal light capable of switching a flashing speed of light between a first speed and a second speed higher than the first speed, and the notification method further comprises: notifying the pedestrian of the second information by switching the flashing speed according to the time distance. Additionally, Iwamoto in view of Murai does not teach specifically teach an automated driving vehicle.
However, Ikehara teaches wherein the roadside apparatus includes a signal light capable of switching a flashing speed of light between a first speed and a second speed higher than the first speed, and the notification method further comprises: notifying the pedestrian of the second information by switching the flashing speed according to the time distance (Ikehara, Para. 0045-0046, 0063, 0118 – “notifier 20 performs notification which increases an output amount of the predetermined output (increases the brightness level of light, for example), or increases a rate of variation in the predetermined output (increase a blinking rate of light, for example), with decreasing difference (D12−D11) between second distance D12 of two-wheel vehicle P12 to sensor 10 and first distance D11 of pedestrian to sensor 10, which are measured by sensor 10”, such that “pedestrian P11 more easily notices the notification performed by notifier 20, and be more easily aware that a dangerous moving object is gradually approaching to pedestrian P11”, such that there is a first blinking rate at a first distance and a second blinking rate at a decreased distance; where further, “a time at which two moving objects will collide” is determined and “a manner of output may be varied prior to the time of collision”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the notification method including the above limitations of Iwamoto in view of Murai to include wherein the roadside apparatus includes a signal light capable of switching a flashing speed of light between a first speed and a second speed higher than the first speed, and the notification method further comprises: notifying the pedestrian of the second information by switching the flashing speed according to the time distance, as taught by Ikehara, in order to improve pedestrian safety, such that the pedestrian “more easily notices the notification” and can be “more easily aware that a dangerous moving object is gradually approaching” (Ikehara, Para. 0045).
Iwamoto in view of Murai and Ikehara does not teach specifically teach an automated driving vehicle.
However, Hwang teaches an automated driving vehicle (Hwang, Para. 0011, 0023 – where “a vehicle may be semi-automated or fully automated” and receives “a warning signal notifying nearby vehicles of presence and danger of a pedestrian on a road”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the notification method including the above limitations of Iwamoto in view of Murai and Ikehara to include an automated driving vehicle, as taught by Hwang, in order to improve the safety of pedestrians by notifying an automated driving vehicle of a collision risk (Hwang, Para. 0220, 0236).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto in view of Murai, Ikehara, and Hwang, and further in view of Miura, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0280134) and Ike (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0090085)
In regards to Claim 2, Iwamoto in view of Murai, Ikehara, and Hwang teaches the roadside apparatus of Claim 1, and Iwamoto in view of Murai, Ikehara, and Hwang further teaches wherein the external environment is weather (Murai, Para. 0050, 0054-0055 – determining a “vehicle's arrival time”, where if the vehicle’s arrival time is “less than or equal to the pedestrian's crossing time”, or a time distance threshold, “notify the vehicle” or “notify the pedestrian”; where the pedestrian “crossing time”, or the threshold, is determined based on the pedestrian’s “current walking speed” and is corrected based on “the weather and road surface conditions”, or the external environment), and pedestrians detected from a video of the roadside apparatus (Murai, Para. 0009, 0023, 0031 – “a road equipped with a camera”, where an “image recognition unit” recognizes “pedestrians” captured in “images” by the camera; where video is a plurality of images), and a number of obstacles in a vicinity of the roadside apparatus, and the obstacles are trees, utility poles, and building structures (Hwang, Para. 0194 – “the RSU may estimate or determine whether the VRU is positioned in a special zone corresponding to a sidewalk area close to the crosswalk” in consideration of threshold times, where “the threshold time (the first threshold time or the third threshold time) for the special zone may be determined or corrected in further consideration of multiple paths and signal attenuation effects according to the surrounding environment (street trees, traffic light supports, nearby buildings, etc.)”), but Iwamoto in view of Murai, Ikehara, and Hwang does not teach wherein the external environment is illuminance, a time period, a number of other vehicles or degree of congestion on a roadway, a number of pedestrians detected.
However, Miura teaches wherein the external environment is illuminance (Miura, Para. 0020, 0157 – a “threshold value correcting unit” which corrects the threshold time based on “the amount of solar radiation S detected”), a time period (Miura, Para. 0020, 0157 – “a current time of day”, i.e. “daytime or night”), a number of other vehicles or degree of congestion on a roadway (Miura, Para. 0010-0011 – “a threshold value correcting unit that corrects the threshold value time… if the counted number of remote vehicles is larger than the reference number”, such that “the degree of congestion is high”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the roadside apparatus including the above limitations of Iwamoto in view of Murai, Ikehara, and Hwang to include wherein the external environment is illuminance, a time period, a number of other vehicles or degree of congestion on a roadway, as taught by Miura, in order to improve collision avoidance by alerting a vehicle of risk at the “right timing” based on external situations (Miura, Para. 0009, 0012).
Iwamoto in view of Murai and Miura does not teach wherein the external environment is a number of pedestrians detected.
However, Ike teaches wherein the external environment is a number of pedestrians detected (Ike, Para. 0014, 0038 – “a plurality of objects including an object moving toward the determination area”, where a moving object may be “a pedestrian”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the roadside apparatus including the above limitations of Iwamoto in view of Murai, Hwang, and Miura to include wherein the external environment is a number of pedestrians detected, as taught by Ike, in order to improve the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.
In regards to Claim 3, Iwamoto in view of Murai, Ikehara, Hwang, Miura, and Ike teaches the roadside apparatus of Claim 2, and Iwamoto in view of Murai teaches pedestrians detected from the video of the roadside apparatus (Murai, Para. 0009, 0023, 0031 – “a road equipped with a camera”, where an “image recognition unit” recognizes “pedestrians” captured in “images” by the camera; where video is a plurality of images), but Iwamoto in view of Murai does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: set, in a case in which the weather is rainy, cloudy, or foggy, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the weather being sunny; set, in a case in which the illuminance is less than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the illuminance being equal to or greater than the reference value; set, in a case in which the time period is nighttime, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the time period being daytime; set, in a case in which the number of other vehicles or the degree of congestion on the roadway is less than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the number of other vehicles or the degree of congestion on the roadway being equal to or greater than the reference value; set, in a case in which the number of pedestrians detected is equal to or greater than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the number of pedestrians detected being less than the reference value; and set, in a case in which the number of obstacles in the vicinity of the roadside apparatus is equal to or greater than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the number of obstacles in the vicinity of the roadside apparatus being less than the reference value.
However, Miura teaches wherein the controller is configured to: set, in a case in which the weather is rainy, cloudy, or foggy, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the weather being sunny (Miura, Para. 0023, 0159 – where a “threshold value correcting unit may correct the threshold value time” in “accordance with the weather of a current location”, such that “the threshold value time” is “a longer threshold value time” when the weather is poor, such as “rain, or snow”, “compared with a case in which the weather of the current location is fine”);
set, in a case in which the illuminance is less than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the illuminance being equal to or greater than the reference value (Miura, Para. 0020, 0157-0158 – a “threshold value correcting unit” which corrects the threshold time based on “the amount of solar radiation S detected”, where if the “the amount of solar radiation S is smaller than the threshold amount of solar radiation”, set a “longer threshold value time”);
set, in a case in which the time period is nighttime, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the time period being daytime (Miura, Para. 0020, 0157-0158 – a “threshold value correcting unit” which corrects the threshold time based on “a current time of day”, where if the “the current time of day is night”, set a “longer threshold value time”, “compared with that in daytime”);
set, in a case in which the number of other vehicles or the degree of congestion on the roadway is less than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the number of other vehicles or the degree of congestion on the roadway being equal to or greater than the reference value (Miura, Para. 0010-0011 – “a threshold value correcting unit that corrects the threshold value time… if the counted number of remote vehicles is larger than the reference number”, such that “the degree of congestion is high”, where the “threshold value time” is “a longer threshold value time” when congestion is high);
and set, in a case in which the number of obstacles in the vicinity of the roadside apparatus is equal to or greater than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the number of obstacles in the vicinity of the roadside apparatus being less than the reference value (Miura, Para. 0010-0011, 0058-0059 – “a threshold value correcting unit that corrects the threshold value time… if the counted number of remote vehicles is larger than the reference number”, where remote vehicles may be obstacles, where the “threshold value time” is corrected to “a longer threshold value time”; where “road-side apparatuses” each including “a road-side camera” may “continuously captures images” of remote vehicles “coming close to (approaching) the intersection”, or in the vicinity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roadside apparatus including the above limitations of Iwamoto in view of Murai, Ikehara, Hwang, Miura, and Ike to further include wherein the controller is configured to: set, in a case in which the weather is rainy, cloudy, or foggy, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the weather being sunny; set, in a case in which the illuminance is less than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the illuminance being equal to or greater than the reference value; set, in a case in which the time period is nighttime, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the time period being daytime; set, in a case in which the number of other vehicles or the degree of congestion on the roadway is less than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the number of other vehicles or the degree of congestion on the roadway being equal to or greater than the reference value; and set, in a case in which the number of obstacles in the vicinity of the roadside apparatus is equal to or greater than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the number of obstacles in the vicinity of the roadside apparatus being less than the reference value, as taught by Miura, in order to improve collision avoidance by alerting a vehicle of risk at the “right timing” based on external situations (Miura, Para. 0009, 0012).
Iwamoto in view of Murai, Hwang, and Miura does not teach set, in a case in which the number of pedestrians detected is equal to or greater than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the number of pedestrians detected being less than the reference value.
However, Ike teaches set, in a case in which the number of pedestrians detected is equal to or greater than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the number of pedestrians detected being less than the reference value (Ike, Para. 0014, 0020, 0036-0038 – identifying “a plurality of objects including an object moving toward the determination area”, where a moving object may be “a pedestrian”; where if the “number of detection times” of the moving object “reaches the number of times”, “collision avoidance operation is able to be executed at an earlier timing”, where “collision avoidance” includes issuing “a warning”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roadside apparatus including the above limitations of Iwamoto in view of Murai, Hwang, Miura, and Ike to further include et, in a case in which the number of pedestrians detected is equal to or greater than a reference value, a threshold with a larger value compared with a case of the number of pedestrians detected being less than the reference value, as taught by Ike, in order to in order to improve the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto in view of Murai, Ikehara, and Hwang, and further in view of Laur, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,493,118).
In regards to Claim 4, Iwamoto in view of Murai, Ikehara, and Hwang teaches the roadside apparatus of Claim 1, but Iwamoto in view of Murai, Ikehara, and Hwang does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: set a first threshold and a second threshold that is a larger value than the first threshold; and notify the automated driving vehicle of a message as the first information and/or notify the pedestrian of the message as the second information, via the notification interface, in a case in which the time distance is less than the first threshold, the message encouraging a more urgent response than a case in which the time distance is equal to or greater than the first threshold and less than the second threshold, and/or notify the pedestrian of the second information by flashing the signal light at the first speed in a case in which the time distance is equal to or greater than the first threshold and less than the second threshold, and flashing the signal light at the second speed in a case in which the time distance is less than the first threshold.
However, Laur teaches wherein the controller is configured to: set a first threshold and a second threshold that is a larger value than the first threshold (Laur, Col. 7 Lines 28-43 – a case where the “time-to-impact is relatively long, greater than five seconds for example”, or a first threshold, and a case where “time-to-impact 66 is less than a time-threshold (not shown) stored in the controller 20, less than 2 seconds for example”, or second threshold); and notify the automated driving vehicle of a message as the first information (Laur, Col. 1 Lines 24-61 and Claim 4 – “automated vehicle operation” including outputting “a warning-signal” if a “pedestrian or animal approaching a travel-path of the host-vehicle”) and/or notify the pedestrian of the message as the second information, via the notification interface, in a case in which the time distance is less than the first threshold, the message encouraging a more urgent response than a case in which the time distance is equal to or greater than the first threshold and less than the second threshold (Laur, Col. 7 Lines 28-43 – if “time-to-impact is relatively long” for example “greater than five seconds”, or the first threshold, the “warning-intensity” is set “relatively low” and if the “time-to-impact 66 is less than a time-threshold”, for example, “2 seconds”, or the second threshold, “increase the warning-intensity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the roadside apparatus including the above limitations of Iwamoto in view of Murai, Ikehara, and Hwang to include wherein the controller is configured to: set a first threshold and a second threshold that is a larger value than the first threshold; and notify the automated driving vehicle of a message as the first information via the notification interface, in a case in which the time distance is less than the first threshold, the message encouraging a more urgent response than a case in which the time distance is equal to or greater than the first threshold and less than the second threshold, as taught by Laur, in order to alert the vehicle of sudden changes and prevent pedestrian collisions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Johnson, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0027221) teaches a warning system for pedestrian and vehicular traffic that can warn pedestrians and drivers of an emergency vehicle that is approaching a road intersection.
Tamatsu, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0062685) teaches a pedestrian notification apparatus, which is configured to be used in a vehicle, includes an ambient object detector, a notification target detector and a notifier.
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 HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights