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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response dated March 2, 2026. Claims 11-15, 18-22, and 24-27 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 25, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on November 3, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated March 2, 2026, Examiner withdraws all of the previous objections and previous rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed March 2, 2026, with respect to the rejections of all pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0112997 (newly of record) and U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0318490 (previously of record).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites classify, into a second group of relevant signal generators. The word “relevant” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 11-12, 15, 18-20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0112997 (hereinafter, “Fasola”; newly of record).
Regarding claim 11, Fasola discloses A device for detecting a signal generator that is not relevant to at least one motor vehicle along a particular direction of travel of the at least one motor vehicle so that it does not need to be taken into consideration during operation of the at least one motor vehicle along the particular direction of travel (see at least [0007]; the autonomous driving system (i.e., device)), wherein the device comprises:
a processor (see at least [0007]; a processor) configured to:
receive environmental data from a plurality of different motor vehicles, including the at least one motor vehicle, via a plurality of communication connections, wherein the environmental data includes environmental data from one or more environmental sensors of each of the plurality of motor vehicles during a plurality of journeys at a junction at least along the particular direction of travel at the junction (see at least [0043], [0045]-[0046], [0050], [0052], [0055]-[0056], [0060]-[0062], [0079]; the semantic map is created via environmental data received from mapping vehicles including data pertaining to different route possibilities through intersections);
determine, on a basis of the environmental data, position information and/or orientation information for a plurality of signal generators at the junction with respect to one another and/or with respect to a stop line at the junction (see at least Fig. 5A and [0065]-[0066]; relative positional and orientation information for traffic lights (i.e., signal generators) are determined and added to the semantic labeled data of the semantic map);
classify, from the plurality of signal generators, at least one signal generator into a first group of non-relevant signal generators that does not need to be taken into consideration during the operation of the at least one motor vehicle along the particular direction of travel (see at least [0065]-[0067], [0072], and [0075]-[0077]; labels (i.e., classifications) are associated with each traffic light including which lane they pertain to, information associated with the type of lane, information associated with the exiting/entering lanes, and other relevant information corresponding to directional information and location information of a given vehicle entering the intersection. Anchor points associated with particular directions of travel through the intersection are connected to corresponding relevant traffic lights (i.e., signal generators), and the remaining traffic lights and groups thereof may be considered non-relevant), and
classify, from the plurality of signal generators, at least one other signal generator into a second group of relevant signal generators that does need to be taken into consideration during the operation of the at least one motor vehicle along the particular direction of travel on a basis of the position information and/or the orientation information (see at least [0065]-[0067], [0072], and [0075]-[0077]; any traffic lights associated with a different anchor may be considered a second group of traffic lights (i.e., signal generators) that don’t need to be taken into account. The anchors are based on positional/orientation information of the motor vehicle at the intersection); and
create and/or update map data relating to the junction and the plurality of signal generators, wherein the map data includes attribute information for various ones of the plurality of signal generators indicating whether it is classified into the first group of non-relevant signal generators or the second group of relevant signal generators for the particular direction of travel, wherein a driving function of the at least one vehicle is operated automatically in the particular direction of travel on a basis of the map data and the attribute information for the at least one signal generator classified in the second group of relevant signal generators (see at least [0045]-[0046], [0065]-[0067], [0069], [0072], and [0075]-[0077]; labels (i.e., classifications) are associated with each traffic light including which lane they pertain to, information associated with the type of lane, information associated with the exiting/entering lanes, and other relevant information corresponding to directional information and location information of a given autonomous vehicle entering the intersection. Anchor points associated with particular directions of travel through the intersection are connected to corresponding relevant traffic lights (i.e., signal generators), and the remaining traffic lights may be considered non-relevant. The semantic mapping may be created/updated via mapping vehicles traversing the intersection).
Regarding claim 12, Fasola discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Additionally, Fasola discloses wherein the position information for a first signal generator indicates a longitudinal distance and/or a lateral distance from a second signal generator and/or from the stop line; and/or the orientation information for the first signal generator indicates an orientation of the first signal generator relative to an orientation of a second signal generator and/or relative to the stop line (see at least [0066]; two dimensional positions for traffic lights (i.e., signal generators) at the intersection are added to the semantic map which indicate relative positions to other traffic lights and other intersection labeled objects).
Regarding claim 15, Fasola discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Additionally, Fasola discloses wherein the at least one signal generator classified into the first group of non-relevant signal generators is a pedestrian traffic light and/or a bicycle traffic light (see at least [0046] and [0065]-[0066]; the traffic lights may be labeled to include an indication of whether the light pertains to pedestrians or vehicles).
Regarding claim 18, Fasola discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Additionally, Fasola discloses wherein the environmental data comprises image data from a camera of the at least one motor vehicle (see at least Fig. 3 and [0069]; the environmental data may include camera data (i.e., image data) via a controller of an autonomous vehicle (i.e., at least one motor vehicle)).
Regarding claim 19, Fasola discloses A vehicle guidance system for providing a driving function for automated longitudinal guidance of at least one motor vehicle, the vehicle guidance system (see at least [0007]; the autonomous driving system (i.e., vehicle guidance system) comprising:
a processor configured to (see at least [0007]; a processor), when driving on an entrance to a junction:
determine map data relating to the junction, wherein the map data for different signal generators at the junction each includes attribute information that classify whether the signal generator is relevant to the at least one motor vehicle at least according to its direction of travel so that it needs to be taken into consideration during operation of the at least one motor vehicle along the direction of travel, or that the signal generator is not relevant to the at least one motor vehicle at least according to the direction of travel so that it does not need to be taken into consideration during operation of the at least one motor vehicle along the direction of travel, wherein the map data and the attribute information for the different signal generators is preexisting prior to the at least one motor vehicle driving on the entrance to the junction (see at least [0065]-[0067], [0072], and [0075]-[0077]; labels (i.e., classifications) are associated with each traffic light including which lane they pertain to, information associated with the type of lane, information associated with the exiting/entering lanes, and other relevant information corresponding to directional information and location information of a given vehicle entering the intersection. Anchor points associated with particular directions of travel through the intersection are connected to corresponding relevant traffic lights (i.e., signal generators), and the remaining traffic lights may be considered non-relevant);
determine environmental data relating to the junction using one or more environmental sensors of the vehicle (see at least [0043], [0045]-[0046], [0050], [0052], [0055]-[0056], [0060]-[0062], [0079]; the semantic map is created via environmental data received from mapping vehicles including data pertaining to different route possibilities through intersections);
detect a plurality of signal generators at the junction on a basis of the environmental data (see at least Fig. 5A and [0043], [0045]-[0046], [0050], [0052], [0055]-[0056], [0065]-[0066] and [0079]; relative positional and orientation information for traffic lights (i.e., signal generators) are determined and added to the semantic labeled data of the semantic map and may derive from the environmental data);
determine, on a basis of the map data, including the attribute information for the different signal generators in the map data, and the direction of travel of the vehicle, which one or more signal generators from the plurality of signal generators detected in the environmental data are classified as relevant to the at least one motor vehicle and which one or more signal generators from the plurality of signal generators detected in the environmental data are classified as not relevant to the at least one motor vehicle (see at least [0045]-[0046], [0065]-[0067], [0069], [0072], and [0075]-[0077]; labels (i.e., classifications) are associated with each traffic light including which lane they pertain to, information associated with the type of lane, information associated with the exiting/entering lanes, and other relevant information corresponding to directional information and location information of a given autonomous vehicle entering the intersection. Anchor points associated with particular directions of travel through the intersection are connected to corresponding relevant traffic lights (i.e., signal generators), and the remaining traffic lights may be considered non-relevant. The semantic mapping may be created/updated via mapping vehicles traversing the intersection); and
operate the driving function on a basis of the one or more signal generators which are classified as relevant to the motor vehicle along the direction of travel (see at least [0007], [0021], and [0076]; the vehicle is controlled to drive through the intersection based on relevant traffic lights (i.e., signal generators)).
Regarding claim 20, Fasola discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, Fasola discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, on a basis of the environmental data, position information and/or orientation information for the plurality of signal generators at the junction with respect to one another and/or with respect to a stop line at the entrance to the junction (see at least [0066]; two dimensional positions for traffic lights (i.e., signal generators) at the intersection are added to the semantic map which indicate relative positions to other traffic lights and other intersection labeled objects).; and
determine, on a basis of the position information and/or the orientation information, which one or more signal generators of the plurality of signal generators are relevant to the at least one motor vehicle and which one or more signal generators of the plurality of signal generators detected in the environmental data are classified as not relevant to the at least one motor vehicle (see at least [0065]-[0067], [0072], and [0075]-[0077]; labels (i.e., classifications) are associated with each traffic light including which lane they pertain to, information associated with the type of lane, information associated with the exiting/entering lanes, and other relevant information corresponding to directional information and location information of a given vehicle entering the intersection. Anchor points associated with particular directions of travel through the intersection are connected to corresponding relevant traffic lights (i.e., signal generators), and the remaining traffic lights may be considered non-relevant).
Regarding claim 24, Fasola discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, Fasola discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine and/or receive environmental data from a plurality of different motor vehicles and/or from a plurality of crossings of the junction via a communication connection (see at least [0043]-[0046], [0050], [0052], [0055]-[0056], [0060]-[0062], [0079]; the semantic map is created via environmental data received from mapping vehicles including data pertaining to different route possibilities through intersections and transferred via one or more type of communication connection).
Regarding claim 25, Fasola discloses A method for detecting a non-relevant signal generator that is not relevant to at least one motor vehicle so that it does not need to be taken into consideration during operation of the at least one motor vehicle (see at least [0007], [0065], and the publication generally), the method comprising:
determine map data relating to a junction being approached by the at least one motor vehicle in a direction of travel, wherein the map data, for different signal generators at the junction includes attribute information that classify whether each signal generator is classified into a first group of non-relevant signal generators that are not relevant to the at least one motor vehicle at least according to the direction of travel so that it does not need to be taken into consideration during operation of the at least one motor vehicle along the direction of travel, or into a second group of relevant signal generators that are relevant to the at least one motor vehicle at least according to the direction of travel so that it needs to be taken into consideration during operation of the at least one motor vehicle along the direction of travel, wherein the map data and the attribute information for the different signal generators is preexisting prior to the at least one motor vehicle approaching the junction (see at least [0045]-[0046], [0065]-[0067], [0069], [0072], and [0075]-[0077]; any traffic lights associated with a different anchor may be considered a second group of traffic lights (i.e., signal generators) that don’t need to be taken into account. The anchors are based on positional/orientation information of the motor vehicle at the intersection, and the mapping may exist prior to the entry of the vehicle into the intersection);
determining environmental data relating to the junction from one or more environmental sensors of the at least one motor vehicle (see at least [0043], [0045]-[0046], [0050], [0052], [0055]-[0056], [0060]-[0062], and [0079]; the semantic map is created via environmental data received from mapping vehicles including data pertaining to different route possibilities through intersections and transferred via one or more type of communication connection);
detecting a plurality of signal generators at the junction on a basis of the environmental data (see at least Fig. 5A and [0043], [0045]-[0046], [0050], [0052], [0055]-[0056], [0065]-[0066] and [0079]; relative positional and orientation information for traffic lights (i.e., signal generators) are determined and added to the semantic labeled data of the semantic map and may derive from the environmental data);
determining, on a basis of the map data including the attribute information for the different signal generators in the map data and the direction of travel of the at least one vehicle, which one or more signal generators from the plurality of signal generators detected in the environmental data are classified into the first group of non-relevant signal generators or the second group of relevant signal generators for the direction of travel (see at least [0065]-[0067], [0072], and [0075]-[0077]; any traffic lights associated with a different anchor may be considered a second group of traffic lights (i.e., signal generators) that don’t need to be taken into account. The anchors are based on positional/orientation information of the motor vehicle at the intersection along with the direction of travel of the vehicle); and
automatically operating a driving function of the at least one vehicle in the direction of travel on a basis of the plurality of signal generators identified in the environmental data that are determined to be classified into the second group of relevant signal generators for the direction of travel (see at least [0007], [0021], and [0076]; the autonomous vehicle is controlled to drive through the intersection based on relevant traffic lights (i.e., signal generators)).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 13-14, 21-22, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasola, as applied to claims 11, 19, and 25 above, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0318490 (hereinafter, “Ben Shalom”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 13, Fasola discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. However, Fasola does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 13. Ben Shalom, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify, on a basis of the position information, a first signal generator of the plurality of signal generators which has a lateral distance from a second signal generator of the plurality of signal generators and/or from the stop line that is greater than a predefined distance threshold value (see at least [0173], [0177]-[0181] and [0243]; positional information of traffic lights relative to one another and relative to a stop line may be determined, and the information may indicate relevancy of one or more of the traffic lights (i.e., signal generators)); and
responsively classify the first signal generator into the first group of non-relevant signal generators (see at least [0177]-[0181] and [0243]; positional information of traffic lights relative to one another and relative to a stop line may be determined, and the information may indicate relevancy of one or more of the traffic lights (i.e., signal generators). After the relative positioning of the signal generators is determined, the positional information is utilized when determining whether an angle difference for a given lane may be greater than or equal to a threshold which results in a non-relevance determination. Examiner notes that an angle takes into account both the lateral and longitudinal distance differences).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Fasola with the teachings of Ben Shalom, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve autonomous vehicle responsiveness in order to avoid collisions at intersections; see at least Fasola at [0006].
Regarding claim 14, Fasola discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. However, Fasola does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14. Ben Shalom, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify, on a basis of the position information, a first signal generator of the plurality of signal generators which has a longitudinal distance from a second signal generator of the plurality of signal generators and/or from the stop line that is within a predefined distance range (see at least [0173], [0177]-[0181] and [0243]; positional information of traffic lights relative to one another and relative to a stop line may be determined, and the information may indicate relevancy of one or more of the traffic lights (i.e., signal generators)); and
responsively classify the first signal generator into the first group of non-relevant signal generators (see at least [0177]-[0181] and [0243]; positional information of traffic lights relative to one another and relative to a stop line may be determined, and the information may indicate relevancy of one or more of the traffic lights (i.e., signal generators). After the relative positioning of the signal generators is determined, the positional information is utilized when determining whether an angle difference for a given lane may be greater than or equal to a threshold which results in a non-relevance determination. Examiner notes that an angle takes into account both the lateral and longitudinal distance differences).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Fasola with the teachings of Ben Shalom, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve autonomous vehicle responsiveness in order to avoid collisions at intersections; see at least Fasola at [0006].
Claims 21-22 and 26-27 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claims 13-14, respectively.
Additional Relevant Art (previously of record)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0064894 which relates to stop line position estimation at traffic lights; and
U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0303882 which pertains to autonomous vehicle positioning at intersections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, MARC BURGESS can be reached on (571) 272-9385. 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.
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666