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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 31-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 recites “to predict a location of the pedestrian at a future time based on activity of the pedestrian unrelated to detected movement of the pedestrian.” The specification does not describe this limitation in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 31-47, and 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0096605).
Consider claim 31. Bai et al. discloses a system for providing vehicle-related warning information (para. 0003 describes a system for providing vehicle-related warning information), comprising: a first camera for capturing image data regarding conditions external to a vehicle (para. 0051 describes a vehicle control system, including camera systems); a telematics device for determining telematics information regarding the vehicle (para. 0080 describes a controller for reading vehicle system data received from the navigation system, which can include vehicle latitude, longitude, heading, etc. from a GPS module or other navigation module or application); and a processor configured to receive the image data from the first camera including a pedestrian, to perform image analysis on the image data, and to predict a location of the pedestrian at a future time based on activity of the pedestrian unrelated to detected movement of the pedestrian (para. 0081 describes determining pedestrians’ locations from vehicle’s control system and performing image analysis to predict the path of the pedestrians); to provide an indication of conditions external to the vehicle regarding the pedestrian based on the image analysis; wherein the processor is configured to provide the indication of conditions external to the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle (para. 0081 describes alerting the driver, based on the image analysis, of the predicted path of the pedestrian).
Consider claim 32. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to provide information regarding the indication of conditions external to the vehicle to at least one person outside of the vehicle (para. 0081 describes determining pedestrians’ locations from vehicle’s control system).
Consider claim 33. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the at least one person outside of the vehicle is the pedestrian (para. 0081 describes determining pedestrians’ locations from vehicle’s control system).
Consider claim 34. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, comprising a plurality of cameras associated with the vehicle including the first camera and a second camera for capturing image data regarding the conditions external to the vehicle, wherein the processor is configured to receive the image data from the first and second cameras and to perform image analysis on the image data, and to provide the warning and/or display of conditions external to the vehicle regarding the pedestrian based on the image analysis of the image data from the first camera and the second camera (para. 0051 describes a vehicle control system, including camera systems; para. 0081 describes alerting the driver, based on the image analysis, of the predicted path of the pedestrian).
Consider claim 35. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, comprising a plurality of cameras associated with the vehicle including the first camera and a second camera for capturing image data regarding the driver of the vehicle (para. 0051 describes a vehicle control system, including camera systems).
Consider claim 36. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 35, wherein the processor is configured to provide the indication of conditions external to the vehicle based on driver movement within the vehicle determined from image analysis of the image data from the second camera (paras. 0080-0084 describe indication of conditions external to the vehicle based on driver movement within the vehicle determined from image analysis of the image data).
Consider claim 37. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to receive the image data and the telematics information, and to provide the indication of conditions external to the vehicle based on the image analysis and the telematics information (para. 0080 describes a controller for reading vehicle system data received from the navigation system, which can include vehicle latitude, longitude, heading, etc. from a GPS module or other navigation module or application).
Consider claim 38. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the indication of conditions external to the vehicle includes image data from the first camera (para. 0081 describes alerting the driver using the image data from the camera systems).
Consider claim 39. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the indication includes an audible and/or visual warning regarding a potential collision between the vehicle and the pedestrian (para. 0081 describes alerting the driver using the image data from the camera systems).
Consider claim 40. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to generate a trajectory analysis of the pedestrian using the image data and the telematics information, the trajectory analysis including a location, speed and/or direction of movement of the pedestrian relative to the vehicle and a location, speed and/or direction of movement of the vehicle (para. 0080 describes a controller for reading vehicle system data received from the navigation system, which can include vehicle latitude, longitude, heading, etc. from a GPS module or other navigation module or application).
Consider claim 41. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 40, wherein the trajectory analysis includes a collision analysis that represents a likelihood of the vehicle colliding with the pedestrian at a future time (para. 0007 describes a data analysis system to predict the likelihood of a collision).
Consider claim 42. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 41, wherein the trajectory analysis includes a prediction of activity of the pedestrian during a future time period (para. 0081 describes performing image analysis to predict the path of the pedestrians).
Consider claim 43. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 40, wherein the processor is configured to determine the location, speed and/or direction of movement of the pedestrian based solely on image analysis of the image data (para. 0081 describes performing image analysis to predict the path of the pedestrians), and configured to determine location, speed and/or direction of movement of the vehicle based solely on the telematics data (para. 0080 describes a controller for reading vehicle system data received from the navigation system, which can include vehicle latitude, longitude, heading, etc. from a GPS module or other navigation module or application).
Consider claim 44. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to store image data and telematics data regarding a potential or actual collision with the pedestrian (para. 0065 describes a memory to store data).
Consider claim 45. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the indication represents a potential collision risk between the pedestrian and the vehicle (para. 0007 describes a data analysis system to predict the likelihood of a collision).
Consider claim 46. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the indication includes a suggested driving action to the driver regarding the pedestrian that is determined based on a prediction of movement of the pedestrian (para. 0092 describe providing a symbol or text warning, based on a prediction of movement of the pedestrian, to the driver).
Consider claim 47. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to provide an audible and/or visual warning to the pedestrian regarding the vehicle (para. 0081 describes alerting the driver using the image data from the camera systems).
Consider claim 48. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the processor is configured to determine a collision risk between the pedestrian and the vehicle based on predicted locations of the pedestrian and the vehicle at the future time (para. 0081 describes alerting the driver, based on the image analysis, of the predicted path of the pedestrian).
Consider claim 52. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 49, wherein the information regarding the potential collision includes telematics information including a GPS location of the vehicle (para. 0080 describes a controller for reading vehicle system data received from the navigation system, which can include vehicle latitude, longitude, heading, etc. from a GPS module or other navigation module or application).
Consider claim 53. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the activity of the pedestrian unrelated to detected movement of the pedestrian includes what the pedestrian is doing, whether the pedestrian is wearing headphones, or whether the pedestrian is looking at a phone (para. 0081 describes determining pedestrians’ locations from vehicle’s control system and performing image analysis to predict the path of the pedestrians).
Consider claim 54. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the telematics device includes a GPS device, accelerometer, an input/output interface in the vehicle and onboard diagnostics to monitor the vehicle (para. 0080 describes a controller for reading vehicle system data received from the navigation system, which can include vehicle latitude, longitude, heading, etc. from a GPS module or other navigation module or application).
Consider claim 55. Bai et al. discloses the system of claim 31, wherein the indication is a warning and/or display of the conditions external to the vehicle (para. 0081 describes alerting the driver using the image data from the camera systems).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0096605) in view of Neser et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0058399).
Consider claim 49. Bai et al. discloses all claimed limitations as stated above, except providing recorded and stored information and images regarding a potential collision with the pedestrian.
However, Neser et al. teaches providing recorded and stored information and images regarding a potential collision with the pedestrian (para. 0082 describes storing near-miss conditions with a 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 provide recorded and stored information and images regarding a potential collision with the pedestrian, in order to generate an alert in response to the near-miss condition as suggested by the prior art.
Consider claim 50. Neser et al. teaches the system of claim 49, wherein the processor is configured to store the information and images regarding the potential collision based on a danger represented by the potential collision (para. 0082 describes storing near-miss conditions). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above in claim 49.
Consider claim 51. Neser et al. teaches the system of claim 50, wherein the potential collision results in an actual collision (para. 0063 describes wherein the potential collision results in an actual collision). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above in claim 49.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights