Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/237,119

ROAD SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, ROAD SURVEILLANCE METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 23, 2023
Examiner
EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A
Art Unit
3669
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
858 granted / 1015 resolved
+32.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1035
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§103
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1015 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 1. This action is responsive to amendment received Oct. 17, 2025. 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. 2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baca et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0286246 (referred to hereafter as Baca) in view of Ucar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0083625 (referred to hereafter as Ucar.. As to claims 1, 8 and 15, Baca teaches a road surveillance system, method and medium comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to execute: detecting a road state being a state of an object on a road by processing an image in which the road is captured (see para. 18-19); and performing, when the road state satisfies a first criterion, any of notification processing of making a notification of the road state that satisfies the first criterion according to notification setting related to the notification, and change-related processing related to a change in the notification setting of the notification, based on whether a second criterion is satisfied, wherein the second criterion is a criterion related to a determination result of whether the road state satisfies the first criterion (see para. 22, 63 and 67). Baca does not explicitly teach the criterion is related to the number of times or a frequency with which a road state is determined to satisfy the first criterion. However, Ucar teaches a system and method for sending notification to vehicles based on a criterion where the criterion is related to the number of times or a frequency with which a road state is determined to satisfy the criterion (see para. 39, 80 and 82). It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application send the notification based on a criterion wherein the criterion is related to the number of times or a frequency with which a road state is determined to satisfy the first criterion in Baca as taught by Ucar. Motivation to do so comes from the teaching of Ucar that doing so would ensure more efficient responses and safety controls since directing safety and prevention efforts and resources to intrinsic anomalies will have a greater effect on reducing collisions than indeterminately devoting resources to both extrinsic and intrinsic anomaly situations. As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Baca in view of Ucar teach the system, method and medium according to claims 1, 8 and 15. Baca further teaches performing, any of the notification processing includes performing the notification processing when the first criterion is satisfied, and performing the change-related processing when the first criterion is satisfied and the second criterion is satisfied (see para. 22, 63 and 67). As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Baca in view of Ucar teach the system, method and medium according to claims 2, 9 and 14. Baca further teaches the notification processing is performed when the first criterion is satisfied and the second criterion is not satisfied (see para. 22, 63 and 67). As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Baca in view of Ucar teach the system, method and medium according to claims 1, 8 and 15. Baca further teaches the change-related processing includes first confirmation processing of displaying, on display, a first confirmation screen for making a confirmation related to a change in the notification setting from a user (see para. 63). As to claim 5, 12 and 19, Baca in view of Ucar teach the system, method and medium according to claims 4, 11 and 18. Baca further teaches the first confirmation screen includes the image associated with a road state determined to satisfy the first criterion, and an indicator for identifying each object included in the image (see fig. 6-7). As to claims 6, 13 and 20, Baca in view of Ucar teach the system, method and medium according to claims 5, 12 and 19. Baca further teaches the object includes a vehicle, the road state includes an attribute of the vehicle, and the first confirmation screen further includes an attribute of the vehicle (see fig. 6-7). As to claims 7 and 14, Baca in view of Ucar teach the system, method and medium according to claims 1, 8 and 15. Baca further teaches the change-related processing includes second confirmation processing of displaying, on display, a second confirmation screen for making a confirmation related to a change in image processing setting being setting related to processing of the image from a user (see para. 22, 63 and 67). 3. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. 4. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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. /HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 17, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602028
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENABLING TRUSTED ON-DEMAND DISTRIBUTED MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586469
VEHICLE TROUBLE HANDLING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570167
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE CHARGING EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570303
CONTROL DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR VEHICLE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571635
AUTONOMOUS DRIVING DEVICE AND VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1015 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month