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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to the “Rejection under 35 USC § 112(b)”, the previous rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, a new rejection has been applied in this Office Action. Please see below for details.
In response to the “Rejection under 35 USC § 103” and “Rejection under 35 USC § 102(a)(1)”, the arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new combination of references for teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Specifically, Aoude teaches that the RSE 10 is configured to transmit a first warning message to the onboard vehicle 36 to alert the driver about a possible collision with a pedestrian, and a second message to a pedestrian’s device 46 to alert that pedestrian about the oncoming vehicle. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the first message travels from the communication equipment 20 of the RSE to a relay server, and then from the relay server to the onboard (OBE) vehicle 36. In other words, Aoude teaches the challenged limitation “transmit, to the server apparatus, the first information indicating that an approach of the pedestrian to a roadway has been detected based on the captured image, and … wherein the server apparatus is configured to transmit the first information to a vehicle traveling toward the roadside apparatus” in claim 1 and in similarly presented claims 8 and 15.
Aoude fails to teach the RSE is configured to “receive, from a server apparatus, a request for first information”.
However, in the same field of traffic system, a newly introduced prior art by Lund (Pub. No.: US 2023/0396958 A1) teaches a server that is configured to request a roadside unit to obtain information about the nearby vehicles and pedestrians then report the obtained information to the server. See Fig. 6 and para [0101], “In some examples, the server may further instruct an entity/device to perform measurements with nearby entities/devices for verification. For example, referring to FIG. 6, after the infrastructures 602 identify the number of vehicle UEs 606 and pedestrian UEs 604 within the area, the infrastructures 602 may report the information to a server. Then, the server may request another infrastructure (not shown in the figure), a pedestrian UE, a vehicle UE, or an RSU, to perform the same measurements for that area to verify whether information collected by the infrastructures 602 is accurate.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoude’s relay server to actively request the RSE to report the warning message to signal the server’s readiness and to improve traffic safety.
Accordingly, the rejection is sustained in view of the teachings and suggestions of Aoude in combination with Lund and Chamberlin, which clearly demonstrate that the RSE receives a request from a server to transmit pedestrian information, thereby meeting the claimed limitations.
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, 7-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Regarding claim 1, recites the limitation “output second information to alert the pedestrian for the vehicle” in line 9 but omits the essential steps and/or elements for obtaining information about the vehicle in order for the apparatus to determine the alert.
In addition, the limitation "the vehicle" in the line 9 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 2-7, are also rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, recite the limitation “output second information to alert the pedestrian for a vehicle traveling toward the roadside apparatus” but the claim omits the essential steps and/or elements for obtaining information about the vehicle in order for the system and method to determine the alert.
Regarding claims 9-12, 14 and 16-19, are also rejected because they depend on claims 8 and 15 respectively.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoude (Pat. No.: US 10,235,882 B2) in view of Lund (Pub. No.: US 2023/0396958 A1) and Chamberlin (Pub. No.: US 2024/0339033 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aoude teaches a roadside apparatus (Abstract, roadside equipment (RSE) for an early warning and collision avoidance system) comprising:
a communication interface configured to transmit and receive information (Fig. 1, communication equipment 20, and Col. 12, line 26-29, “The RSE also includes or can make use of communication equipment 20 to communicate by wire or wireless with other RSEs, and with OBEs, OPEs, local or central servers, and other data processing units.”);
an imager configured to capture an image of a pedestrian (Fig. 1, sensor 12, Fig. 3, camera 201, and Col. 16 line 19-25, “Sensors 201 and sensor controllers 207 that may include, but are not limited to, external cameras, lidars, radars, ultrasonic sensors or any device that may be used to detect nearby objects or people or other ground transportation entities. Sensors 201 may also include additional kinematic sensors, global positioning receivers, and internal and local microphones and cameras.”. The RSE includes external and internal cameras for detecting a pedestrian.);
an output interface configured to output information for the pedestrian (Col. 29 line, “If a violation is imminent, a message is relayed (e.g., broadcast) from the RSE to ground transportation entities in the vicinity. … The message can be delivered to the ground transportation entities in one or more of the following ways, among others: a blinking light, sign, or radio signal.”); and
a controller (Fig. 2, processing unit 105) configured to:
transmit, to the server apparatus, the first information indicating that an approach of the pedestrian to a roadway has been detected based on the captured image, and
output second information to alert the pedestrian for the vehicle, wherein the server apparatus is configured to transmit the first information to a vehicle traveling toward the roadside apparatus (Fig. 1, Col. 15 line 41 – 53, “A processing unit 105 that will acquire and use the data generated from the sensors as well as incoming data from the communication units 103, 104. The processing unit will process and store the data locally and, in some implementations, transmit the data for remote storage and further processing. The processing unit will also generate messages and alerts that are broadcast or otherwise sent through wireless communication facilities to nearby pedestrians, motor vehicles, or other ground transportation entities, and in some cases to signs or other infrastructure presentation devices.” and Col. 28 line 62 – Col. 29 line 11, “For each approach to the intersection, data is collected by the RSE (or SRSE) and a machine learning (AI) model is constructed to describe the behavior of the vehicles corresponding to the collected data. Current data collected at the intersection is then applied to the AI model to produce an early prediction whether a vehicle or other ground transportation entity traveling on one of the approaches to the intersection is, for example, about to violate the traffic light. If a violation is imminent, a message is relayed (e.g., broadcast) from the RSE to ground transportation entities in the vicinity. Vehicles (including the violating vehicle) and pedestrians or other vulnerable road users will receive the message and have time to take appropriate pre-emptive measures to avoid a collision. The message can be delivered to the ground transportation entities in one or more of the following ways, among others: a blinking light, sign, or radio signal.”. The RSE includes a processing unit 11 that determines a possible collision between an approaching vehicle and a pedestrian, then transmits a first message to the onboard vehicle 36 and a second message to a pedestrian device 46 about a possible collision. The RSE 20 transmits the warning message to the onboard vehicle 36 via a relay server as shown in Fig. 1).
Aoude fails to teach the RSE is configured to receive, from a server apparatus, a request for first information and fails to teach the RSE is configured to transmit a first warning message to the onboard vehicle and thereafter outputs a second warning message to the pedestrian.
However, in the same field of traffic system, Lund teaches a server is configured to request a roadside unit to obtain information about the nearby vehicles and pedestrians then report the obtained information to the server. See Fig. 6 and para [0101], “In some examples, the server may further instruct an entity/device to perform measurements with nearby entities/devices for verification. For example, referring to FIG. 6, after the infrastructures 602 identify the number of vehicle UEs 606 and pedestrian UEs 604 within the area, the infrastructures 602 may report the information to a server. Then, the server may request another infrastructure (not shown in the figure), a pedestrian UE, a vehicle UE, or an RSU, to perform the same measurements for that area to verify whether information collected by the infrastructures 602 is accurate.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoude’s relay server to actively request the RSE to report the warning message to signal the server’s readiness and to improve traffic safety.
Furthermore, in the same field of collision prevention, Chamberlin teaches a system that outputs an alert to the pedestrian after a predetermined time after the vehicle operator fails to respond to an earlier alert. See Fig. 4, Fig. 6, para [0078] “At PHL 2, moderate risk factors may be detected (e.g., dense pedestrian population in close proximity) and countermeasures may include limiting speed, alerting the driver via haptic feedback, adjusting lighting, and further heightening sensitivity of on-vehicle sensors. At PHL 3, when a collision is deemed to be imminent with a high degree of confidence, countermeasures may include automatic braking and honking, and potential automated counter-maneuvers. When appropriate, some PHL 1, 2, and 3 responses may trigger concurrently, with output behaviors collectively provided. Risk data may also be offboarded to other vehicles and pedestrians nearby, creating a shared awareness of risks in the area. When a vehicle registers data that merits a PHL response, other enabled vehicles nearby may receive an alert on the IHU about an upcoming pedestrian risk, even if they have not yet reached that location. Should a vehicle detect erratic or irregular driving in an increased pedestrian zone, or a driver has failed to respond with corrective action to PHL countermeasures, eligible smartphone users in the area may be alerted, in an application, that an oncoming vehicle presents a risk of harm to those pedestrians.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoude’s RSE to output an alert to the pedestrian after a predetermined time after the vehicle operator fails to respond to an earlier alert to reduce nuisances.
Regarding claim 2, Aoude in the combination teaches the roadside apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the first information on condition that the vehicle is located within a predetermined range from the roadside apparatus (Col. 6 line 50-59, “One of the sensors includes radar and the converting of the data includes determining locations of ground transportation entities from a known location of the radar and distances from the radar to the ground transportation entities. One of the sensors includes a camera and the converting of the data includes determining locations of ground transportation entities from a known location, direction of view, and tilt of the camera and the locations of the ground transportation entities within an image frame of the camera.” and Col. 9 lines 3-17, “We sometimes use the term “vicinity” of a ground transportation entity broadly to include, for example, an area in which a broadcast by the entity can be received by other ground transportation entities or infrastructure devices. In some cases, the vicinity varies with location of the entity and the number and characteristics of obstacles around the entity. An entity traveling on an open road in a desert will have a very wide vicinity since there are no obstacles to prevent a broadcast signal from the entity from reaching long distances. Conversely, the vicinity in an urban canyon will be diminished by the buildings around the entity. Additionally, there may be sources of electromagnetic noise that degrade the quality of the broadcast signal and therefore the distance of reception (the vicinity).”. The RSE transmits the warning message to the vehicle when the vehicle is detected and located within the vicinity of the RSE).
Regarding claim 3, Aoude in the combination teaches the roadside apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured not to transmit the first information when the vehicle is located outside the predetermined range (Col. 6 line 50-59 and Col. 9 lines 3-17, the RSE does not transmit the warning if that vehicle is not within detection range or vicinity of the RSE).
Regarding claim 4, Aoude in the combination teaches the roadside apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the first information on condition that the vehicle travels along a predetermined route toward the roadside apparatus (Fig. 9, Col. 24 lines 10 -19, “For example, in the scenario shown in FIG. 9, a motorized entity 2001 and a vulnerable road user 2002 share the same pedestrian crossing. The entity 2001 is traveling along a road 2007 and is detected by radar 2003. The vulnerable road user 2002 walking along sidewalk 2006 is detected by a camera 2004. The vulnerable road user 2002 may decide to cross the road 2007 using a crosswalk 2005. Doing so places the road user 2002 in the path of entity 2001 creating a possible dangerous situation.” and Col. 20 line 58 – 67, “The AI model is then built to capture important characteristics of the flow of traffic of vehicles and other ground transportation entities for that intersection or other aspects of the ground transportation network. Captured data features may include location, direction, and movement of the vehicles or other ground transportation entities, which can then be translated to intent and behavior. Knowing intent, we can predict actions and future behavior of vehicles or other ground transportation entities approaching the traffic location using the AI model, with high accuracy.”. The RSE determines the direction of the vehicle is approaching the RSE as shown in Fig. 9 or when the vehicle enters into the detection range or vicinity of the RSE).
Regarding claim 5, Aoude in the combination teaches the roadside apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to detect the approach based on the captured image, to thereby transmit the first information (Fig. 9, Col. 24 lines 10 -19 and Col. 28 line 62 - Col. 29 line 11. The RSE detects the pedestrian 2002 is approaching the crosswalk 2005 via camera and transmits the warning message to the oncoming vehicle 2001 to avoid collision.).
Regarding claim 7, Chamberlin in the combination teaches the roadside apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to output the second information, after a lapse of a predetermined time after the first information has been transmitted (Fig. 4, Fig. 6, para [0078]. Step 612 occurs after step 610).
Regarding claim 8, Aoude teaches a system (an early warning and collision avoidance system) comprising:
a server apparatus (Fig. 1, the relay server in between communication equipment 20 and communication equipment 44); and
a roadside apparatus (Fig. 1, RSE 10),
wherein:
the roadside apparatus is configured to transmit, to the server apparatus, the first information indicating that an approach of a pedestrian to a roadway has been detected based on a captured image of the pedestrian (Fig. 9, Col. 24 line 10-16, “For example, in the scenario shown in FIG. 9, a motorized entity 2001 and a vulnerable road user 2002 share the same pedestrian crossing. The entity 2001 is traveling along a road 2007 and is detected by radar 2003.”. Fig. 1, the RSE communication equipment 20 transmits the warning message to the relay server), and output second information to alert the pedestrian for a vehicle traveling toward the roadside apparatus (Col. 28 line 62 – Col. 29 line 11, “For each approach to the intersection, data is collected by the RSE (or SRSE) and a machine learning (AI) model is constructed to describe the behavior of the vehicles corresponding to the collected data. Current data collected at the intersection is then applied to the AI model to produce an early prediction whether a vehicle or other ground transportation entity traveling on one of the approaches to the intersection is, for example, about to violate the traffic light. If a violation is imminent, a message is relayed (e.g., broadcast) from the RSE to ground transportation entities in the vicinity. Vehicles (including the violating vehicle) and pedestrians or other vulnerable road users will receive the message and have time to take appropriate pre-emptive measures to avoid a collision.”. The RSE includes a processing unit 11 that determines a possible collision between an approaching vehicle and a pedestrian, then transmits a first message to the onboard vehicle 36 and a second message to a pedestrian device 46 about a possible collision.), and
the server apparatus is configured to transmit the first information to the vehicle (Fig. 1, the RSE 20 transmits the warning message to a server and the server relays the warning message to the onboard vehicle 36 as shown in Fig. 1).
Aoude fails to teach the server apparatus is configured to transmit, to the roadside apparatus, a request for first information, and fails to teach the RSE is configured to transmit a first warning message to the onboard vehicle and thereafter outputs a second warning message to the pedestrian.
However, in the same field of traffic system, Lund teaches a server is configured to request a roadside unit to obtain information about the nearby vehicles and pedestrians then report the obtained information to the server. See Fig. 6 and para [0101], “In some examples, the server may further instruct an entity/device to perform measurements with nearby entities/devices for verification. For example, referring to FIG. 6, after the infrastructures 602 identify the number of vehicle UEs 606 and pedestrian UEs 604 within the area, the infrastructures 602 may report the information to a server. Then, the server may request another infrastructure (not shown in the figure), a pedestrian UE, a vehicle UE, or an RSU, to perform the same measurements for that area to verify whether information collected by the infrastructures 602 is accurate.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoude’s relay server to actively request the RSE to report the warning message to signal the server’s readiness and to improve traffic safety.
Furthermore, in the same field of collision prevention, Chamberlin teaches a system that outputs an alert to the pedestrian after a predetermined time after the vehicle operator fails to respond to an earlier alert. See Fig. 4, Fig. 6, para [0078] “At PHL 2, moderate risk factors may be detected (e.g., dense pedestrian population in close proximity) and countermeasures may include limiting speed, alerting the driver via haptic feedback, adjusting lighting, and further heightening sensitivity of on-vehicle sensors. At PHL 3, when a collision is deemed to be imminent with a high degree of confidence, countermeasures may include automatic braking and honking, and potential automated counter-maneuvers. When appropriate, some PHL 1, 2, and 3 responses may trigger concurrently, with output behaviors collectively provided. Risk data may also be offboarded to other vehicles and pedestrians nearby, creating a shared awareness of risks in the area. When a vehicle registers data that merits a PHL response, other enabled vehicles nearby may receive an alert on the IHU about an upcoming pedestrian risk, even if they have not yet reached that location. Should a vehicle detect erratic or irregular driving in an increased pedestrian zone, or a driver has failed to respond with corrective action to PHL countermeasures, eligible smartphone users in the area may be alerted, in an application, that an oncoming vehicle presents a risk of harm to those pedestrians.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoude’s RSE to output an alert to the pedestrian after a predetermined time after the vehicle operator fails to respond to an earlier alert to reduce nuisances.
Regarding claim 9, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, recites a method for the system of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, recites a method for the system of claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, recites a method for the system of claim 10. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, recites a method for the system of claim 11. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, recites a method for the system of claim 12. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights