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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 19/001,638 filed on 12/26/2024.
• Claims 1-4, 6-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 08/04/2026.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
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 Application No. 19/001,638, filed on 02/07/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2026, 12/26/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 11 and 18 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 and 11 is directed towards a machine, claim 18 is directed towards a method including at least one step.
STEP Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claim 1 recites the limitation of detecting the pedestrian in the acquired video and determining that a distance between the automated driving vehicle and the camera is within a predetermined range. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a controller”. That is, other than reciting “a controller” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a vehicle controller” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at video data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claim 1 recites a mental process. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The other analogous claims 11 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as representative claim 1 as discussed here.
STEP Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim 1 recites additional elements of acquiring video obtained by imaging, with a camera, a sidewalk along which a pedestrian passes, the sidewalk bordering on a roadway on which an automated driving vehicle travels; and cause a terminal apparatus of an operator of the automated driving vehicle to output a notification that the video is available for display, and displaying the video in response to an operation, and when the terminal apparatus is located inside the automated driving vehicle, output the notification to the terminal apparatus; and when the terminal apparatus is located outside the automated driving vehicle, output the video to the terminal apparatus. The acquiring video step from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering sidewalk road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying notification and displaying a video to the terminal apparatus in response to where the terminal apparatus is located is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluation step. The “terminal apparatus” is recited at a high level of generality and is merely used to display a notice or video to the operator. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the acquiring video step and the displaying step were extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional camera mounted on the sidewalk, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 6-10, 12-17 and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding some of the other examples of additional limitations in the dependent claims such as “transmit a request to the driving assistance apparatus …” (claim 2) and “transmit the notification or video via the communication interface to the terminal apparatus …” (claims 3 and 6), the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. Sending a message or video data steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending/transmitting a message requesting data based on previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1 and the explanations provided above.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-4, 6-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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, 10-11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuike (US20190221115A1) in view of Baker (US20170341611A1), further in view of Matsuba (US20220321899A1) and Kusumoto (US20200037133A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18:
Masuike teaches:
A driving assistance apparatus comprising a controller configured to: (Masuike, para [17], “The control system 10 includes the roadside device 1, the in-vehicle device (other device) 110 (see FIG. 2), and the smartphone (other device) 200”) Examiner note: Masuike teaches a roadside device as a driving assistance apparatus to assist vehicle driver to determine the state of the sidewalk around the roadside device, and transmit the determined state of the sidewalk to the in vehicle device.
acquire video obtained by imaging, with a camera, (Masuike, para[63], “the camera constantly photographs images overlooking surroundings of the road on which the roadside device 1 is installed”)
a sidewalk along which a pedestrian passes, the sidewalk bordering on a roadway on which a vehicle travels; (Masuike, Fig. 1 depicts a sidewalk along which a pedestrian passes, the sidewalk bordering on a roadway on which a vehicle travels, and para[63], “the camera constantly photographs images overlooking surroundings of the road on which the roadside device 1 is installed”)
PNG
media_image1.png
676
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and upon detecting the pedestrian in the acquired video, (Masuike, para[60], “The roadside device 1 includes … a camera (detector) 3 that detects information for determining the state of the sidewalk”, and para [69], “Examples of the state of sidewalk are as follows: … presence or absence of pedestrian”)
determine that a distance between the vehicle and the camera is within a predetermined range, and in response to the distance being within the predetermined range, (Masuike, para[20], “The in-vehicle device 110 includes the communication unit 111 that communicates with the roadside device 1”, para[60], “The roadside device 1 includes … a camera”, para [22], “The communication unit 111 communicates with a communication device presenting within a predetermined distance, for example, the roadside device 1, via the short-range wireless communication, and transmits and receives data”)
cause a terminal apparatus of an operator of the vehicle to output a notification (Masuike, para[127], “the in-vehicle device 110 may notify a driver of the state and the danger level of the sidewalk”)
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Baker teaches:
an automated driving vehicle (Baker, para [17], “an autonomous vehicle”)
output the video to the terminal apparatus (Baker, para [40], “The remote communications module 202 is configured to transmit, e.g. stream video captured by the one or more cameras 103 … to a remote user device 800 via a cellular network 1000”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have considered the teachings James to modify roadside devices from Masuike, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the technique of outputting the video to the terminal apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Matsuba teaches:
a notification that the video is available for display. (Matsuba, para [195], “a displayed notification indicating that …video frames 129 are ready for display.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have considered the teachings James to modify roadside devices from Masuike, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the technique of output a notification that the video is available for display. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Kusumoto teaches:
and when the terminal apparatus is located inside the automated driving vehicle; and when the terminal apparatus is located outside the automated driving vehicle. ( Kusumoto teaches an inside-outside determination unit to checks whether a user’s mobile device is inside or outside a vehicle, para [02], “The present disclosure relates to a vehicle system and a vehicle system device that determine whether a mobile device is located inside or outside a vehicle interior”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have considered the teachings Kusumoto to modify roadside devices from Masuike, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the technique of determining when the terminal apparatus is located inside the automated driving vehicle; and when the terminal apparatus is located outside the automated driving vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Regarding claim 10:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Masuike teaches:
A system comprising: the driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1; (Masuike, para [17], “The control system 10 includes the roadside device 1, the in-vehicle device (other device) 110 (see FIG. 2), and the smartphone (other device) 200”) Examiner note: Masuike teaches a roadside device as a driving assistance apparatus to assist vehicle driver to determine the state of the sidewalk around the roadside device, and transmit the determined state of the sidewalk to the in vehicle device.
and a terminal apparatus. (Masuike, para [17], “one smartphone 200”)
Regarding claim 11:
Masuike teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to execute operations, the operations comprising (Masuike, para [06], “A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a control program for controlling a roadside device to execute the steps of detecting information for determining a state of a sidewalk around the roadside device”)
the video being obtained by imaging, with a camera, a sidewalk along which a pedestrian passes, the sidewalk bordering on a roadway on which a vehicle travels; (Masuike, para[63], “the camera constantly photographs images overlooking surroundings of the road on which the roadside device 1 is installed”, Fig. 1 depicts a sidewalk along which a pedestrian passes, the sidewalk bordering on a roadway on which a vehicle travels, and para[63], “the camera constantly photographs images overlooking surroundings of the road on which the roadside device 1 is installed”, para[60], “The roadside device 1 includes … a camera (detector) 3 that detects information for determining the state of the sidewalk”, and para [69], “Examples of the state of sidewalk are as follows: … presence or absence of pedestrian”)
and the notification being output when a distance between the automated driving vehicle and the camera is within a predetermined range; (Masuike, para[20], “The in-vehicle device 110 includes the communication unit 111 that communicates with the roadside device 1”, para[60], “The roadside device 1 includes … a camera”, para [22], “The communication unit 111 communicates with a communication device presenting within a predetermined distance, for example, the roadside device 1, via the short-range wireless communication, and transmits and receives data”, para[127], “the in-vehicle device 110 may notify a driver of the state and the danger level of the sidewalk”)
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Baker teaches:
an automated driving vehicle (Baker, para [17], “an autonomous vehicle”)
output the video to the terminal apparatus (Baker, para [40], “The remote communications module 202 is configured to transmit, e.g. stream video captured by the one or more cameras 103 … to a remote user device 800 via a cellular network 1000”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have considered the teachings James to modify roadside devices from Masuike, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the technique of outputting the video to the terminal apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Matsuba teaches:
outputting a notification that video is available for display, (Matsuba, para [195], “a displayed notification indicating that …video frames 129 are ready for display.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Matsuba in order to output a notification that the video is available for display. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Kusumoto teaches:
and when the terminal apparatus is located inside the automated driving vehicle; and when the terminal apparatus is located outside the automated driving vehicle. ( Kusumoto teaches an inside-outside determination unit to checks whether a user’s mobile device is inside or outside a vehicle, para [02], “The present disclosure relates to a vehicle system and a vehicle system device that determine whether a mobile device is located inside or outside a vehicle interior”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have considered the teachings Kusumoto to modify roadside devices from Masuike, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the technique of determining when the terminal apparatus is located inside the automated driving vehicle; and when the terminal apparatus is located outside the automated driving vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Claim(s) 2-3, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuike (US20190221115A1) in view of Baker (US20170341611A1), further in view of Matsuba (US20220321899A1), Kusumoto (US20200037133A1), Koji (JP2011134087A) and Sun (CN109017767A).
Regarding claims 2 and 19:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 18. Masuike teaches:
The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with the terminal apparatus, (Masuike, para[04], “a communication unit configured to communicate with an other device”)
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Kusumoto teaches:
wherein when the terminal apparatus is located inside the vehicle ( Kusumoto teaches an inside-outside determination unit to checks whether a user’s mobile device is inside or outside a vehicle, para [02], “The present disclosure relates to a vehicle system and a vehicle system device that determine whether a mobile device is located inside or outside a vehicle interior”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have considered the teachings Kusumoto to modify roadside devices from Masuike, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the technique of determining when the terminal apparatus is located inside the automated driving vehicle; and when the terminal apparatus is located outside the automated driving vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Matsuba teaches:
and the notification is output:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have considered the teachings James to modify roadside devices from Masuike, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the technique of output a notification that the video is available for display. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Baker teaches:
upon accepting an operation by the operator to instruct display of the video, (Baker, para [137], “operator to accept a video streaming request … the video data being streamed.”)
in response to the request, (Baker, para [137], “operator to accept a video streaming request.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Baker in order to include wherein the terminal apparatus is configured to transmit a request to the driving assistance apparatus upon accepting an operation by the operator to instruct display of the video and the controller is configured to transmit, in response to the request, the video via the communication interface to the terminal apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Koji teaches:
wherein the terminal apparatus is configured to transmit a request to the driving assistance apparatus (Koji, para [07], “transmits a … operation request to the driving assist device”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Koji in order to include wherein the terminal apparatus is configured to transmit a request to the driving assistance apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Sun teaches:
and the controller is configured to transmit… the video via the communication interface to the terminal apparatus ( Sun, para [195], “the terminal establishes a communication connection with the vehicle auxiliary control equipment and receives at least one of the following from the vehicle auxiliary control equipment located on the vehicle … video”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Sun in order to receive the video from the driving assistance apparatus and the controller is configured to start transmitting the video via the communication interface to the terminal apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Regarding claim 3:
Masuike in view of Baker, Matsuba, Kusumoto, Koji and Sun, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Masuike teaches:
from the driving assistance apparatus, (Masuike, para [17], “The control system 10 includes the roadside device 1, the in-vehicle device (other device) 110 (see FIG. 2), and the smartphone (other device) 200”) Examiner note: Masuike teaches a roadside device as a driving assistance apparatus to assist vehicle driver to determine the state of the sidewalk around the roadside device, and transmit the determined state of the sidewalk to the in vehicle device.
and the controller is configured to transmit, via the communication interface to the terminal apparatus, (Masuike, para[04], “a communication unit configured to communicate with an other device”)
upon detecting the pedestrian in the video. (Masuike, para[60], “The roadside device 1 includes … a camera (detector) 3 that detects information for determining the state of the sidewalk”, and para [69], “Examples of the state of sidewalk are as follows: … presence or absence of pedestrian”)
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Matsuba teaches:
The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the terminal apparatus is configured to output the notification that the video is available for display upon receiving, ( Matsuba, para [195], “a displayed notification indicating that …video frames 129 are ready for display.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Matsuba in order to include wherein the terminal apparatus is configured to output the notification that the video is available for display upon receiving. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Baker teaches:
a notification that the video is available for transmission, (Baker, para [137], “the user device controller 810 is/are configured to receive … notification … the video data being streamed.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Baker in order to include a notification that the video is available for transmission. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Regarding claim 12:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Koji teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 11, wherein the operation further includes: transmitting a request to a driving assistance apparatus (Koji, para [07], “transmits a … operation request to the driving assist device”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Koji in order to include wherein the terminal apparatus is configured to transmit a request to the driving assistance apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Baker teaches:
upon accepting the operation; (Baker, para [137], “accept a video streaming request”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Baker in order to include upon accepting an operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Sun teaches:
receiving the video from the driving assistance apparatus; ( Sun, para [195], “receives at least one of the following from the vehicle auxiliary control equipment … video”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Sun in order to receive the video from the driving assistance apparatus a. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Matsuba teaches:
after outputting the notification to the terminal apparatus (Matsuba, para [195], “a displayed notification indicating that …video frames 129 are ready for display.”)
and displaying the received video.( Matsuba, para [193], “received from another device to generate the reconstructed video frames 129 for display”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Matsuba in order to display the received video. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Regarding claim 13:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Sun teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise receiving the video from the driving assistance apparatus, ( Sun, para [195], “receives at least one of the following from the vehicle auxiliary control equipment … video”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Sun in order to receive the video from the driving assistance apparatus a. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Baker teaches:
and the displaying includes starting to display the received video upon accepting the operation. (Baker, para [137], “the user device controller 810 is/are configured to receive the safety event notification and to display an invitation to the user or operator to accept a video streaming request relating to the safety event. … the video data being streamed.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Baker in order to display the received video upon accepting the operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Matsuba teaches:
after outputting the notification to the terminal apparatus (Matsuba, para [195], “a displayed notification indicating that …video frames 129 are ready for display.”)
and displaying the received video.( Matsuba, para [193], “received from another device to generate the reconstructed video frames 129 for display”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Matsuba in order to display the received video. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Claim(s) 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuike (US20190221115A1) in view of Baker (US20170341611A1), further in view of Matsuba (US20220321899A1), Kusumoto (US20200037133A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 20:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 18. Masuike teaches:
The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with the terminal apparatus, (Masuike, para[04], “a communication unit configured to communicate with an other device”)
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Kusumoto teaches:
wherein when the terminal apparatus is located inside the automated driving vehicle; and when the terminal apparatus is located outside the automated driving vehicle. ( Kusumoto teaches an inside-outside determination unit to checks whether a user’s mobile device is inside or outside a vehicle, para [02], “The present disclosure relates to a vehicle system and a vehicle system device that determine whether a mobile device is located inside or outside a vehicle interior”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have considered the teachings Kusumoto to modify roadside devices from Masuike, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the technique of determining when the terminal apparatus is located inside the automated driving vehicle; and when the terminal apparatus is located outside the automated driving vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Matsuba teaches:
and the notification is output:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have considered the teachings James to modify roadside devices from Masuike, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the technique of output a notification that the video is available for display. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Baker teaches:
wherein the terminal apparatus is configured to start displaying the video upon accepting an operation by the operator to instruct display of the video, (Baker, para [137], “the user device controller 810 is/are configured to receive the safety event notification and to display an invitation to the user or operator to accept a video streaming request relating to the safety event. … the video data being streamed.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Baker in order to include wherein the terminal apparatus is configured to start displaying the video upon accepting an operation by the operator to instruct display of the video. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Claim(s) 6-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuike (US20190221115A1) in view of Baker (US20170341611A1), further in view of Matsuba (US20220321899A1), Kusumoto (US20200037133A1), Sun (CN109017767A), Koyama (US20210027496A1) and Chen (US 20160004915 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Masuike teaches:
The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with the terminal apparatus, wherein the controller is configured to: (Masuike, para[04], “a communication unit configured to communicate with an other device”)
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Sun teaches:
transmit the video via the communication interface to the terminal apparatus, ( Sun, para [195], “the terminal establishes a communication connection with the vehicle auxiliary control equipment and receives at least one of the following from the vehicle auxiliary control equipment located on the vehicle … video”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Sun in order to transmit the video via the communication interface to the terminal apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Baker teaches:
in response to a request from the terminal apparatus or regardless of presence or absence of a request from the terminal apparatus; (Baker, para [137], “the user device controller 810 is/are configured to receive … a video streaming request relating to the safety event. … the video data being streamed.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Baker in order to in response to a request from the terminal apparatus or regardless of presence or absence of a request from the terminal apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Koyama teaches:
and end transmission of the video(Koyama, para [359], “stop transmission of the video data”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Koyama in order to end transmission of the video. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Chen teaches:
when an end condition is met.(Chen, para [37], “vehicles may pass through the camera”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Chen in order to end transmission of the video when an end condition is met. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Regarding claim 7:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, Sun, Koyama and Chen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Chen teaches:
The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the end condition includes a condition that the automated driving vehicle has passed by a location in which the camera is installed. (Chen, para [37], “vehicles may pass through the camera”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Chen in order to include wherein the end condition includes a condition that the automated driving vehicle has passed by a location in which the camera is installed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Regarding claim 9:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, Sun, Koyama and Chen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Masuike teaches:
The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the location is a crosswalk on the roadway or in a vicinity of the crosswalk. (Masuike, Fig. 1 depicts a location is a crosswalk on the roadway or in a vicinity of the crosswalk)
PNG
media_image1.png
676
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuike (US20190221115A1) in view of Baker (US20170341611A1), further in view of Matsuba (US20220321899A1), Kusumoto (US20200037133A1), Sun (CN109017767A), Koyama (US20210027496A1), Chen (US 20160004915 A1) and Stonecypher (US 20050134982 A1)
Regarding claim 8:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, Sun, Koyama and Chen as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Stonecypher teaches:
The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the location is a blind spot from the roadway or in a vicinity of the blind spot.(, para [33], “entering into the blind spot area on a roadway”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Stonecypher in order to include wherein the location is a blind spot from the roadway or in a vicinity of the blind spot. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuike (US20190221115A1) in view of Baker (US20170341611A1), further in view of Matsuba (US20220321899A1) and Kusumoto (US20200037133A1) and Gravina (WO2006127673A1).
Regarding claim 14:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Gravina teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 11, wherein the notification includes a graphic element to accept the operation. (Gravina, Fig. 8B depicts that the keys may comprise a touch sensitive display device, or a touch-sensitive area of a multi-purpose display device, that displays button graphics and accepts button presses”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Gravina in order to include a graphic element to accept the operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Regarding claim 15:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, Gravina as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 14. Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Gravina teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 14, wherein the operation is a tap on the graphic element. (Gravina, Fig. 8B depicts that the keys may comprise a touch sensitive display device, or a touch-sensitive area of a multi-purpose display device, that displays button graphics and accepts button presses”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Gravina in order to include wherein the operation is a tap on the graphic element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Regarding claim 16:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, Gravina as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 14. Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Gravina teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 14, wherein the graphic element is a button. (Gravina, Fig. 8B depicts that the keys may comprise a touch sensitive display device, or a touch-sensitive area of a multi-purpose display device, that displays button graphics and accepts button presses”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Gravina in order to include wherein the graphic element is a button. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuike (US20190221115A1) in view of Baker (US20170341611A1), further in view of Matsuba (US20220321899A1) and Kusumoto (US20200037133A1) and Gravina (WO2006127673A1) and Molin (US20160086033A1).
Regarding claim 17:
Masuike in view of Baker and Matsuba and Kusumoto, Gravina as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 14. Masuike does not explicitly teach, but Molin teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 14, wherein the graphic element is an icon indicating the pedestrian. ( Molin, para [32], “generates a graphic representing the pedestrian”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify road side device from Masuike to include these above teachings from Molin in order to include wherein the graphic element is an icon indicating the pedestrian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety in the operation of automated driving vehicles.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant argues that independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. claim 1 recites the limitation of detecting the pedestrian in the acquired video and determining that a distance between the automated driving vehicle and the camera is within a predetermined range. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a controller”. That is, other than reciting “a controller” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a vehicle controller” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at video data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claim 1 recites a mental process. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The other analogous claims 11 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as representative claim 1 as discussed here. The claim 1 recites additional elements of acquiring video obtained by imaging, with a camera, a sidewalk along which a pedestrian passes, the sidewalk bordering on a roadway on which an automated driving vehicle travels; and cause a terminal apparatus of an operator of the automated driving vehicle to output a notification that the video is available for display, and displaying the video in response to an operation, and when the terminal apparatus is located inside the automated driving vehicle, output the notification to the terminal apparatus; and when the terminal apparatus is located outside the automated driving vehicle, output the video to the terminal apparatus. The acquiring video step from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering sidewalk road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying notification and displaying a video to the terminal apparatus in response to where the terminal apparatus is located is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluation step. The “terminal apparatus” is recited at a high level of generality and is merely used to display a notice or video to the operator. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 (See applicant’s response, page 8, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
