DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobbitt et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0269383) in view of Orellana (Pub. No. US 2021/0223363) further in view of MATSUHANA et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0233404).
Regarding claim 1, Bobbitt teaches a method for recognition of obstacles in a danger zone (rail crossing) able to be traversed by a vehicle [Para. 28], the method comprising: using a sensor facility to sense objects lying in or on the danger zone (rail crossing) [fig. 7, steps 702, 704 and corresponding description]; recognizing/identifying/distinguishing the sensed objects with computer assistance [Para. 29, 32, and 35]; carrying out an assessment with computer assistance for recognition of obstacles [Para. 29, 32, 35, fig. 2-4 and related description]; for performing the assessment, using a model of the danger zone with the objects to be recognized for the assessment of the objects, the model containing a multiplicity of objects to be recognized and a position of the objects in or on the danger zone [Para. 29, 57, and 67]; for performing the assessment, checking, aided by the model, whether the recognized objects have been recognized at an expected position [Para. 57 “Object monitoring process 408 will identify items in images 410 that have remained stationary over a period of time as set of background objects 414”. Stationary items (background) are expected to be at the same location].
However, Bobbitt doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Orellana teaches the model (reference map) includes an object (the portion of train track (202) that was located where unit 232 and 230 are) not assigned to any of the recognized objects (fig. 2 unit 230, 232) and then making the assessment that an obstacle is in the zone as a result of the model including the object not assigned to any of the recognized objects [Abstract “A vehicle travelling through the tunnel of travel the vehicle will register with reference map and use differences between scans and the reference map to perform object detection. Responses are performed based on the object detection or object identification”; Para. 30 “multiple scans will be performed at the same location and any difference in the shape of the object or obstacle will be used to determine whether stone 232 is rigid or flexible”; fig. 4 and related description. It’s is clear that when there is no train track at expected location, the system knows that there is an obstacle. Then, the system determines what type of the obstacle. Para. 42 also teaches “surface points that were part of the reference map, but which were not detected by the scan, may be grouped together into gaps, voids or holes. These voids may also be used as part of any response performed later in this process.”]; and initiating braking of the vehicle after making the assessment that the obstacle is in the dancer zone [Para. 30 “multiple scans will be performed at the same location and any difference in the shape of the object or obstacle will be used to determine whether stone 232 is rigid or flexible. In this case the object detection system should detect stone 232 is a solid and heavy object and then an appropriate response will be taken. For example, an automatic emergency response triggered, such as issuing a warning alarm or message, reducing the velocity or starting an emergency braking procedure to stop the train. If there is any obstacle blocking equipment or impact preparation materials available to the train, such items would be deployed”. In this case, see fig. 2 units 202, 230, and 232; “different in shape” the system expects train track (202) at the locations of 232 and 230 based on the reference map. However, when the train track (202) is not recognized/identified/located at that location (232 and 230), the system determines that there is an obstacle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bobbitt to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Orellana; because the modification improves obstacle detection reliability by building a reference map on an initial pass then flagging objects based on the difference.
Bobbitt in view of Orellana doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
However, MATSUHANA teaches for performing the assessment, with computer assistance, comparing the recognized objects sensed by the sensor facility (vehicular camera 40) to the objects to be recognized (markers 14) stored in the model (map data) [Para. 119, 168, and 178] to check whether the recognized objects have been recognized at an expected position (estimated position) based on the model until the model includes an object (Marker ID) not assigned to any of the recognized objects at a respective position (expected position) [Para. 162, 204, and 221], and then making the assessment that an obstacle is in the danger zone (travel route) due to occlusion of the object by the obstacle (blind region) [Para. 206, 208, and 209]; breaking of the vehicle making an assessment [Para. 132].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bobbitt in view of Orellana to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by MATSUHANA; because the modification improves autonomous vehicle parking reliability by detecting when expected markers are missing because an obstacle blocks them, allowing the system to identify recognition problems and unsafe conditions more safely.
Regarding claim 2, Bobbitt teaches comprises sensing markers/type/size as objects, the markers carrying information for the sensing of the objects [Para. 60].
Regarding claim 3, Bobbitt teaches after the assessment that an obstacle is located in the danger zone: using the sensor facility to sense the obstacle lying in the danger zone [Para. 58, 59, 76, and 77]; and recognizing the sensed obstacle with computer assistance [Para. 58, 59, 76, and 77].
Regarding claim 4, Bobbitt teaches which further comprises monitoring a danger zone of a railroad crossing as the danger zone [fig. 1-4 and related description].
Regarding claim 5, Bobbitt teaches attaching the sensor facility to at least one barrier tree (pole) or at least one barrier drive of the railroad crossing, and using the sensor facility to monitor the danger zone in a direction of view towards a track [fig. 1, unit 102, 110 and related description].
Regarding claim 6, Bobbitt teaches comprises monitoring a danger zone of a platform as the danger zone [fig. 1-4 and related description. Railroad crossing is dangerous].
Regarding claim 7, Bobbitt teaches attaching the sensor facility lying opposite the platform, and using the sensor facility to monitor the danger zone in a direction of view towards a track [fig. 1 and related description].
Regarding claim 8, Bobbitt teaches a sensor facility for sensing objects in a danger zone [para. 34, fig. 1-3 and related description]; and a computer for recognition of the sensed objects [para. 34, fig. 1-3 and related description]; said arrangement configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 [para. 34, fig. 1-3 and related description].
Regarding claim 9, Bobbitt teaches a sensor facility for sensing objects in a danger zone of the railroad crossing [para. 34, fig. 1-3 and related description]; and a computer for recognition of the sensed objects [para. 34, fig. 1-3 and related description]; said arrangement configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 [para. 34, fig. 1-3 and related description].
Regarding claim 10, Bobbitt teaches a sensor facility for sensing objects in a danger zone in front of the platform [para. 34, fig. 1-3 and related description]; and a computer for recognition of the sensed objects [para. 34, fig. 1-3 and related description]; said arrangement configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 [para. 34, fig. 1-3 and related description].
Regarding claim 11, Bobbitt teaches comprising program instructions stored thereon, that when executed on a processor, carry out the method according to claim 1 [para. 34].
Regarding claim 12, Bobbitt teaches the provision apparatus at least one of storing or providing the computer program product [para. 34].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666