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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/15/2025. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10-13, and 18-23 are amended. Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-23 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 10773732 B1, hereinafter “Alexander”, in view of US 20090190857 A1, hereinafter “Epshtein”, JP 2009107543 A, hereinafter “Iwai”, JP 2009301267 A, hereinafter “Higa”, and US 20180186278 A1, hereinafter “Song”.
Regarding claim 1, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 21. Song renders obvious wherein the second color is emitted at an intensity that is different than an intensity of the first color (See [0065], the invention changes headlight color and directs the headlight beams to emit light in a strobed fashion in order to draw driver’s attention to a particular point of interest or hazard. The change to strobed lights is a change in intensity of the light, namely change from a constant intensity to one alternating between high intensity and low or no intensity. It would be obvious to combine alerting the driver if they have not followed the directions of identified signs of Higa with alerting the driver by modifying headlight color and using a strobe pattern to draw their attention to the relevant sign of Song.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance, including alerting the driver if their driving operation does not match the response required by the sign, disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, and Higa to include drawing the driver’s attention to the relevant sign by changing the headlight color and using a strobe pattern, as suggested by Song. One of ordinary skill of the art would have been motivated to make this motivation in order to bring the driver’s attention to relevant signs, as suggested by Song at [0065].
Regarding claim 4, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Iwai further discloses selecting at least one of the intensity or a color based on a driving behavior of the vehicle (See page 5 paragraph 7, the light irradiation range is adjusted based on vehicle speed and steering angle, both of which are driving behaviors of the vehicle. See page 4 paragraphs 4-8. Irradiation range for subsections of the LED elements are set by illuminating unit. Examiner asserts that changing the irradiation range of the LED elements inherently comprises selecting an intensity of the illumination.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign recognition, display, and headlight illumination modification disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, Higa, and Song to include changing the headlight intensity based on the vehicle speed of Iwai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because moving at higher speeds means that the vehicle reaches the object faster, meaning a larger area of illumination is required to illuminate the object for the same period of time, as suggested by Iwai at page 5 paragraph 7.
Regarding claim 5, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Higa renders obvious wherein the changing the first color to the second color is based on at least one of a speed or a direction of the vehicle (See Abstract. The device identifies a sign on the road at the vehicle’s location. The vehicle determines whether the driving behavior, in this case speed or deceleration, of the vehicle matches that required by the sign. This is inherently based on the speed of the vehicle. See page 5 paragraph 9-page 5 paragraph 11. The device alerts the driver. The intensity of the alert depends on whether or not the driver is decelerating the vehicle in response to the sign, i.e. in response to determining the operation of the vehicle has or has not been modified in response to the identified sign. It would be obvious to combine alerting the driver if they have not followed the directions of identified signs of Higa with alerting the driver by modifying headlight color to draw their attention to the relevant sign of Song.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign recognition, display, and headlight illumination modification disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, and Song to include identifying signs that should be brought to the driver’s attention by means of modifying the headlight color and intensity in response to a determination that the vehicle’s operation has not been modified in response to the sign of Higa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to alert the driver to a sign indicating their driving operation is not suitable, as suggested by Higa at Abstract.
Regarding claim 6, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 21. Ephstein further discloses wherein the characteristic comprises one or more of an importance of the sign or a level of danger associated with a condition indicated by the sign (See [0023]-[0024] an importance score is assigned to specific types of signs, in this case business signs. This means that the characteristic which is used for determining the dimensions comprises both the type of sign and the importance of the sign.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification, illumination, and display disclosed by Alexander, Iwai, Higa, and Song to include displaying the image of the sign and resizing the image based on the type and importance of the sign of Ephstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to preserve the important features of the sign based on its type and importance of that type as suggested by Ephstein at [0006].
Regarding claim 8, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 22. Song renders obvious wherein the second color is emitted at an intensity that is different than an intensity of the first color (See [0065], the invention changes headlight color and directs the headlight beams to emit light in a strobed fashion in order to draw driver’s attention to a particular point of interest or hazard. The change to strobed lights is a change in intensity of the light, namely change from a constant intensity to one alternating between high intensity and low or no intensity. It would be obvious to combine alerting the driver if they have not followed the directions of identified signs of Higa with alerting the driver by modifying headlight color and using a strobe pattern to draw their attention to the relevant sign of Song.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance, including alerting the driver if their driving operation does not match the response required by the sign, disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, and Higa to include drawing the driver’s attention to the relevant sign by changing the headlight color and using a strobe pattern, as suggested by Song. One of ordinary skill of the art would have been motivated to make this motivation in order to bring the driver’s attention to relevant signs, as suggested by Song at [0065].
Regarding claim 11, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 8. Iwai further discloses select at least one of the intensity or a color based on a driving behavior of the vehicle (See page 5 paragraph 7, the light irradiation range is adjusted based on vehicle speed and steering angle, both of which are driving behaviors of the vehicle. See page 4 paragraphs 4-8. Irradiation range for subsections of the LED elements are set by illuminating unit. Examiner asserts that changing the irradiation range of the LED elements inherently comprises selecting an intensity of the illumination.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign recognition, display, and headlight illumination modification disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, Higa, and Song to include changing the headlight intensity based on the vehicle speed of Iwai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because moving at higher speeds means that the vehicle reaches the object faster, meaning a larger area of illumination is required to illuminate the object for the same period of time, as suggested by Iwai at page 5 paragraph 7.
Regarding claim 12, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 8. Higa renders obvious wherein the changing the first color to the second color is based on at least one of a speed or a direction of the vehicle (See Abstract. The device identifies a sign on the road at the vehicle’s location. The vehicle determines whether the driving behavior, in this case speed or deceleration, of the vehicle matches that required by the sign. This is inherently based on the speed of the vehicle. See page 5 paragraph 9-page 5 paragraph 11. The device alerts the driver. The intensity of the alert depends on whether or not the driver is decelerating the vehicle in response to the sign, i.e. in response to determining the operation of the vehicle has or has not been modified in response to the identified sign. It would be obvious to combine alerting the driver if they have not followed the directions of identified signs of Higa with alerting the driver by modifying headlight color to draw their attention to the relevant sign of Song.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign recognition, display, and headlight illumination modification disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, and Song to include identifying signs that should be brought to the driver’s attention by means of modifying the headlight color and intensity in response to a determination that the vehicle’s operation has not been modified in response to the sign of Higa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to alert the driver to a sign indicating their driving operation is not suitable, as suggested by Higa at Abstract.
Regarding claim 13, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 22. Ephstein further discloses wherein the characteristic comprises one or more of: an importance of the sign or a level of danger associated with a condition indicated by the sign (See [0023]-[0024] an importance score is assigned to specific types of signs, in this case business signs. This means that the characteristic which is used for determining the dimensions comprises both the type of sign and the importance of the sign.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification, illumination, and display disclosed by Alexander, Iwai, Higa, and Song to include displaying the image of the sign and resizing the image based on the type and importance of the sign of Ephstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to preserve the important features of the sign based on its type and importance of that type as suggested by Ephstein at [0006].
Regarding claim 15, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 21. Song renders obvious wherein the second color is emitted at an intensity that is different than an intensity of the first color (See [0065], the invention changes headlight color and directs the headlight beams to emit light in a strobed fashion in order to draw driver’s attention to a particular point of interest or hazard. The change to strobed lights is a change in intensity of the light, namely change from a constant intensity to one alternating between high intensity and low or no intensity. It would be obvious to combine alerting the driver if they have not followed the directions of identified signs of Higa with alerting the driver by modifying headlight color and using a strobe pattern to draw their attention to the relevant sign of Song.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance, including alerting the driver if their driving operation does not match the response required by the sign, disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, and Higa to include drawing the driver’s attention to the relevant sign by changing the headlight color and using a strobe pattern, as suggested by Song. One of ordinary skill of the art would have been motivated to make this motivation in order to bring the driver’s attention to relevant signs, as suggested by Song at [0065].
Regarding claim 18, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 15. Iwai further discloses selecting at least one of the intensity or a color based on a driving behavior of the vehicle (See page 5 paragraph 7, the light irradiation range is adjusted based on vehicle speed and steering angle, both of which are driving behaviors of the vehicle. See page 4 paragraphs 4-8. Irradiation range for subsections of the LED elements are set by illuminating unit. Examiner asserts that changing the irradiation range of the LED elements inherently comprises selecting an intensity of the illumination.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign recognition, display, and headlight illumination modification disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, Higa, and Song to include changing the headlight intensity based on the vehicle speed of Iwai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because moving at higher speeds means that the vehicle reaches the object faster, meaning a larger area of illumination is required to illuminate the object for the same period of time, as suggested by Iwai at page 5 paragraph 7.
Regarding claim 19, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 15. Higa renders obvious wherein the changing the first color to the second color is based on at least one of a speed or a direction of the vehicle (See Abstract. The device identifies a sign on the road at the vehicle’s location. The vehicle determines whether the driving behavior, in this case speed or deceleration, of the vehicle matches that required by the sign. This is inherently based on the speed of the vehicle. See page 5 paragraph 9-page 5 paragraph 11. The device alerts the driver. The intensity of the alert depends on whether or not the driver is decelerating the vehicle in response to the sign, i.e. in response to determining the operation of the vehicle has or has not been modified in response to the identified sign. It would be obvious to combine alerting the driver if they have not followed the directions of identified signs of Higa with alerting the driver by modifying headlight color to draw their attention to the relevant sign of Song.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign recognition, display, and headlight illumination modification disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, and Song to include identifying signs that should be brought to the driver’s attention by means of modifying the headlight color and intensity in response to a determination that the vehicle’s operation has not been modified in response to the sign of Higa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to alert the driver to a sign indicating their driving operation is not suitable, as suggested by Higa at Abstract.
Regarding claim 20, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 23. Ephstein further discloses wherein the characteristic comprises one or more of an importance of the sign or a level of danger associated with a condition indicated by the sign (See [0023]-[0024] an importance score is assigned to specific types of signs, in this case business signs. This means that the characteristic which is used for determining the dimensions comprises both the type of sign and the importance of the sign.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification, illumination, and display disclosed by Alexander, Iwai, Higa, and Song to include displaying the image of the sign and resizing the image based on the type and importance of the sign of Ephstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to preserve the important features of the sign based on its type and importance of that type as suggested by Ephstein at [0006].
Regarding claim 21, Alexander discloses A method performed by a vehicle (See column 10 paragraph 1, the vehicle controller executes the method. See column 3 paragraph 2, the vehicle controller is part of the vehicle. The vehicle therefore performs the method.), the method comprising:
capturing an image of a sign using a camera associated with the vehicle (See column 5 paragraph 2, the sensor system of the vehicle records a sequence of optical scans and identifies a crosswalk sign in the sequence of optical scans, i.e. captured an optical scan comprising the sign. See column 7 paragraph 5-column 8 paragraph 2, the sensor system comprises cameras. The optical scan is a result of processing the camera, i.e. image data, and is therefore processed image data.);
analyzing image data of the image to identify a characteristic of the sign (See column 5 paragraph 2, the sensor system of the vehicle records a sequence of optical scans and identifies a crosswalk sign in the sequence of optical scans. This is analyzing the optical scan data to identify a characteristic of the sign, specifically the type of sign. See column 7 paragraph 5-column 8 paragraph 2, the sensor system comprises cameras. The optical scan is a result of processing the camera, i.e. image data, and is therefore processed image data.);
displaying an image associated with the sign on a display of the vehicle (See column 10 paragraph 1, an icon, i.e. image, associated with the sign is displayed.).
Alexander does not explicitly disclose displaying the image of the sign, wherein dimensions of the image are based on the characteristic, illuminating the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign, or in response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, modifying the image data to increase the dimensions of the image, and changing the first color to a second color.
Epshtein, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses displaying an image of the sign, wherein dimensions of the image are based on the characteristic (See [0006], business signs are identified in an image. This is identifying the type of the sign, and therefore a characteristic of the sign. See [0023]-[0024] an importance score is assigned to specific types of signs, in this case business signs, and the corresponding sections of the image are scaled based on the importance score. This is changing the dimension of the sign part of the image based on the characteristic. See [0030]-[0031], the system can perform importance-based resizing of the image itself, in this case reducing the size of an image of a map. This is changing the dimensions of the image based on the importance score, which can be the type of a sign and therefore a characteristic of the sign. See [0058], the image is displayed.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display disclosed by Alexander to include displaying the image of the sign and resizing the image based on the type of the sign of Ephstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to preserve the important features of the sign based on its type as suggested by Ephstein at [0006].
Alexander combined with Ephstein does not explicitly disclose illuminating the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign, or in response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, modifying the image data to increase the dimensions of the image, and changing the first color to a second color.
Iwai, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses illuminating the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign (See page 5 paragraph 1-2, the detection unit detects a sign and determines its characteristics for use in determining illumination settings. This inherently occurs when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign, namely the distance under which the detection unit can detect the sign under current conditions. See page 5 paragraph 4-5, the type of the sign is used to estimate the color of the sign, and a color used by the illuminating unit is chosen based on the color of the sign, and therefore the type of the sign. This is illuminating the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight. See page 3 paragraph 11-page 4 paragraph 1, the vehicle lighting device mounted on the host vehicle illuminates the sign with the chosen color. See page 2 paragraph 2 the vehicle lighting device is a headlight.) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign recognition and display disclosed by Alexander and Ephstein to include the modification of headlight color in response to sign type of Iwai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve visibility of the sign as suggested by Iwai at page 1 paragraph 1.
Higa, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious in response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, modifying the image data to increase the dimensions of the image (See Abstract. The device identifies a sign on the road at the vehicle’s location. The vehicle determines whether the driving behavior, in this case speed or deceleration, of the vehicle matches that required by the sign. See page 5 paragraph 9-page 5 paragraph 11. The device alerts the driver. The intensity of the alert depends on whether or not the driver is decelerating the vehicle in response to the sign, i.e. in response to determining the operation of the vehicle has or has not been modified in response to the identified sign. Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to apply the teaching of increasing the intensity of alert by assigning an increased importance score to the image of the sign and increasing its dimensions. Digital images are inherently modified, including increasing dimensions, by modifying image data before presentation.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, and Iwai to include increasing the importance of signs, and thereby increasing the dimensions of the sign, in response to a determination that the vehicle’s operation has not been modified in response to the sign. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to alert the driver to a sign indicating their driving operation is not suitable, as suggested by Higa at Abstract.
Song, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious changing the first color to a second color (See [0065], the invention changes headlight color in order to draw driver’s attention to a particular point of interest or hazard. It would be obvious to combine alerting the driver if they have not followed the directions of identified signs of Higa with alerting the driver by modifying headlight color to draw their attention to the relevant sign of Song.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance, including alerting the driver if their driving operation does not match the response required by the sign, disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, and Higa to include drawing the driver’s attention to the relevant sign by changing the headlight color, as suggested by Song. One of ordinary skill of the art would have been motivated to make this motivation in order to bring the driver’s attention to relevant signs, as suggested by Song at [0065].
Regarding claim 22, Alexander discloses A vehicle (See column 10 paragraph 1, the vehicle controller executes the method. See column 3 paragraph 2, the vehicle controller is part of the vehicle. The vehicle therefore performs the method.) comprising:
a processor that, when executing instructions stored in a memory (See column 3 paragraph 2, the vehicle comprises the interfacing system, which comprises the vehicle controller. See column 10 paragraph 1, the vehicle controller detects traffic signs which are on the travel path that the vehicle is approaching, i.e. on the road, to the interfacing system. This indicates that the controller is a computer, which inherently comprises a processor that executes instructions stored in memory.), is configured to:
capture an image of a sign using a camera associated with the vehicle (See column 5 paragraph 2, the sensor system of the vehicle records a sequence of optical scans and identifies a crosswalk sign in the sequence of optical scans, i.e. captured an optical scan comprising the sign. See column 7 paragraph 5-column 8 paragraph 2, the sensor system comprises cameras. The optical scan is a result of processing the camera, i.e. image data, and is therefore processed image data.);
analyze image data of the image to identify a characteristic of the sign (See column 5 paragraph 2, the sensor system of the vehicle records a sequence of optical scans and identifies a crosswalk sign in the sequence of optical scans. This is analyzing the optical scan data to identify a characteristic of the sign, specifically the type of sign. See column 7 paragraph 5-column 8 paragraph 2, the sensor system comprises cameras. The optical scan is a result of processing the camera, i.e. image data, and is therefore processed image data.);
display an image associated with the sign on a display of the vehicle (See column 10 paragraph 1, an icon, i.e. image, associated with the sign is displayed.).
Alexander does not explicitly disclose display the image of the sign, wherein dimensions of the image are based on the characteristic, illuminate the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign, or andin response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, modify the image data to increase the dimensions of the image, and change the first color to a second color.
Epshtein, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses display the image of the sign, wherein dimensions of the image are based on the characteristic (See [0006], business signs are identified in an image. This is identifying the type of the sign, and therefore a characteristic of the sign. See [0023]-[0024] an importance score is assigned to specific types of signs, in this case business signs, and the corresponding sections of the image are scaled based on the importance score. This is changing the dimension of the sign part of the image based on the characteristic. See [0030]-[0031], the system can perform importance-based resizing of the image itself, in this case reducing the size of an image of a map. This is changing the dimensions of the image based on the importance score, which can be the type of a sign and therefore a characteristic of the sign. See [0058], the image is displayed.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display disclosed by Alexander to include displaying the image of the sign and resizing the image based on the type of the sign of Ephstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to preserve the important features of the sign based on its type as suggested by Ephstein at [0006].
Alexander combined with Ephstein does not explicitly disclose illuminate the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign, or in response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, modify the image data to increase the dimensions of the image, and change the first color to a second color.
Iwai, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses illuminate the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign (See page 5 paragraph 1-2, the detection unit detects a sign and determines its characteristics for use in determining illumination settings. This inherently occurs when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign, namely the distance under which the detection unit can detect the sign under current conditions. See page 5 paragraph 4-5, the type of the sign is used to estimate the color of the sign, and a color used by the illuminating unit is chosen based on the color of the sign, and therefore the type of the sign. This is illuminating the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight. See page 3 paragraph 11-page 4 paragraph 1, the vehicle lighting device mounted on the host vehicle illuminates the sign with the chosen color. See page 2 paragraph 2 the vehicle lighting device is a headlight.) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign recognition and display disclosed by Alexander and Ephstein to include the modification of headlight color in response to sign type of Iwai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve visibility of the sign as suggested by Iwai at page 1 paragraph 1.
Higa, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious in response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, modify the image data to increase the dimensions of the image (See Abstract. The device identifies a sign on the road at the vehicle’s location. The vehicle determines whether the driving behavior, in this case speed or deceleration, of the vehicle matches that required by the sign. See page 5 paragraph 9-page 5 paragraph 11. The device alerts the driver. The intensity of the alert depends on whether or not the driver is decelerating the vehicle in response to the sign, i.e. in response to determining the operation of the vehicle has or has not been modified in response to the identified sign. Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to apply the teaching of increasing the intensity of alert by assigning an increased importance score to the image of the sign and increasing its dimensions. Digital images are inherently modified, including increasing dimensions, by modifying image data before presentation.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, and Iwai to include increasing the importance of signs, and thereby increasing the dimensions of the sign, in response to a determination that the vehicle’s operation has not been modified in response to the sign. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to alert the driver to a sign indicating their driving operation is not suitable, as suggested by Higa at Abstract.
Song, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious change the first color to a second color (See [0065], the invention changes headlight color in order to draw driver’s attention to a particular point of interest or hazard. It would be obvious to combine alerting the driver if they have not followed the directions of identified signs of Higa with alerting the driver by modifying headlight color to draw their attention to the relevant sign of Song.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance, including alerting the driver if their driving operation does not match the response required by the sign, disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, and Higa to include drawing the driver’s attention to the relevant sign by changing the headlight color, as suggested by Song. One of ordinary skill of the art would have been motivated to make this motivation in order to bring the driver’s attention to relevant signs, as suggested by Song at [0065].
Regarding claim 23, Alexander discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform (See column 17 paragraph 6-column 18 paragraph 1, the computing system implements the systems and methods described in the rest of the specification. See column 18 paragraph 2, the computer system comprises a CPU, which is a processor. See column 18 paragraph 5-column 19 paragraph 1, the computer system comprises non-volatile, i.e. non-transitory, memory storing instructions for the computer process, i.e. that cause the processor to perform specific tasks when executed.):
capturing an image of a sign using a camera associated with the vehicle (See column 5 paragraph 2, the sensor system of the vehicle records a sequence of optical scans and identifies a crosswalk sign in the sequence of optical scans, i.e. captured an optical scan comprising the sign. See column 7 paragraph 5-column 8 paragraph 2, the sensor system comprises cameras. The optical scan is a result of processing the camera, i.e. image data, and is therefore processed image data.);
analyzing image data of the image to identify a characteristic of the sign (See column 5 paragraph 2, the sensor system of the vehicle records a sequence of optical scans and identifies a crosswalk sign in the sequence of optical scans. This is analyzing the optical scan data to identify a characteristic of the sign, specifically the type of sign. See column 7 paragraph 5-column 8 paragraph 2, the sensor system comprises cameras. The optical scan is a result of processing the camera, i.e. image data, and is therefore processed image data.);
displaying an image associated with the sign on a display of the vehicle (See column 10 paragraph 1, an icon, i.e. image, associated with the sign is displayed.).
Alexander does not explicitly disclose displaying the image of the sign, wherein dimensions of the image are based on the characteristic, illuminating the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign, or in response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, modifying the image data to increase the dimensions of the image, and changing the first color to a second color.
Epshtein, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses displaying an image of the sign, wherein dimensions of the image are based on the characteristic (See [0006], business signs are identified in an image. This is identifying the type of the sign, and therefore a characteristic of the sign. See [0023]-[0024] an importance score is assigned to specific types of signs, in this case business signs, and the corresponding sections of the image are scaled based on the importance score. This is changing the dimension of the sign part of the image based on the characteristic. See [0030]-[0031], the system can perform importance-based resizing of the image itself, in this case reducing the size of an image of a map. This is changing the dimensions of the image based on the importance score, which can be the type of a sign and therefore a characteristic of the sign. See [0058], the image is displayed.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display disclosed by Alexander to include displaying the image of the sign and resizing the image based on the type of the sign of Ephstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to preserve the important features of the sign based on its type as suggested by Ephstein at [0006].
Alexander combined with Ephstein does not explicitly disclose illuminating the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign, or in response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, modifying the image data to increase the dimensions of the image, and changing the first color to a second color.
Iwai, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses illuminating the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign (See page 5 paragraph 1-2, the detection unit detects a sign and determines its characteristics for use in determining illumination settings. This inherently occurs when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign, namely the distance under which the detection unit can detect the sign under current conditions. See page 5 paragraph 4-5, the type of the sign is used to estimate the color of the sign, and a color used by the illuminating unit is chosen based on the color of the sign, and therefore the type of the sign. This is illuminating the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight. See page 3 paragraph 11-page 4 paragraph 1, the vehicle lighting device mounted on the host vehicle illuminates the sign with the chosen color. See page 2 paragraph 2 the vehicle lighting device is a headlight.) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign recognition and display disclosed by Alexander and Ephstein to include the modification of headlight color in response to sign type of Iwai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve visibility of the sign as suggested by Iwai at page 1 paragraph 1.
Higa, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious in response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, modifying the image data to increase the dimensions of the image (See Abstract. The device identifies a sign on the road at the vehicle’s location. The vehicle determines whether the driving behavior, in this case speed or deceleration, of the vehicle matches that required by the sign. See page 5 paragraph 9-page 5 paragraph 11. The device alerts the driver. The intensity of the alert depends on whether or not the driver is decelerating the vehicle in response to the sign, i.e. in response to determining the operation of the vehicle has or has not been modified in response to the identified sign. Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to apply the teaching of increasing the intensity of alert by assigning an increased importance score to the image of the sign and increasing its dimensions. Digital images are inherently modified, including increasing dimensions, by modifying image data before presentation.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, and Iwai to include increasing the importance of signs, and thereby increasing the dimensions of the sign, in response to a determination that the vehicle’s operation has not been modified in response to the sign. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to alert the driver to a sign indicating their driving operation is not suitable, as suggested by Higa at Abstract.
Song, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, renders obvious changing the first color to a second color (See [0065], the invention changes headlight color in order to draw driver’s attention to a particular point of interest or hazard. It would be obvious to combine alerting the driver if they have not followed the directions of identified signs of Higa with alerting the driver by modifying headlight color to draw their attention to the relevant sign of Song.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance, including alerting the driver if their driving operation does not match the response required by the sign, disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, and Higa to include drawing the driver’s attention to the relevant sign by changing the headlight color, as suggested by Song. One of ordinary skill of the art would have been motivated to make this motivation in order to bring the driver’s attention to relevant signs, as suggested by Song at [0065].
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Alexander, Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, Song, and US 9463794 B1, hereinafter “Silver”.
Regarding claim 3, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 21. Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song does not explicitly disclose adjusting a speed of the vehicle in response to the characteristic. Silver, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses adjusting a speed of the vehicle in response to the characteristic (See column 7 paragraph 6-column 8 paragraph 1, a camera is part of the perception system. See column 9 paragraph 2, the perception system uses the sensor data to detect a sign and determine its type (stop sign or other). This is the characteristic of the sign. See column 9 paragraph 4-column 10 paragraph 1, the vehicle is stopped, which is an adjustment of speed, based on determining the sign is a stop sign that applies to the vehicle.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance, including alerting the driver if their driving operation does not match the response required by the sign, disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, Higa, and Song to include stopping in response to identifying a stop sign applicable to the vehicle disclosed by Silver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow the vehicle to operate more safely in an autonomous or semi-autonomous mode, as suggested by Silver at column 1 paragraph 1.
Regarding claim 10, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 22. Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song does not explicitly disclose adjust a speed of the vehicle in response to the characteristic. Silver, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses adjust a speed of the vehicle in response to the characteristic (See column 7 paragraph 6-column 8 paragraph 1, a camera is part of the perception system. See column 9 paragraph 2, the perception system uses the sensor data to detect a sign and determine its type (stop sign or other). This is the characteristic of the sign. See column 9 paragraph 4-column 10 paragraph 1, the vehicle is stopped, which is an adjustment of speed, based on determining the sign is a stop sign that applies to the vehicle.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance, including alerting the driver if their driving operation does not match the response required by the sign, disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, Higa, and Song to include stopping in response to identifying a stop sign applicable to the vehicle disclosed by Silver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow the vehicle to operate more safely in an autonomous or semi-autonomous mode, as suggested by Silver at column 1 paragraph 1.
Regarding claim 17, Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song renders obvious the limitations of claim 23. Alexander combined with Epshtein, Iwai, Higa, and Song does not explicitly disclose adjusting a speed of the vehicle in response to the characteristic. Silver, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses adjusting a speed of the vehicle in response to the characteristic (See column 7 paragraph 6-column 8 paragraph 1, a camera is part of the perception system. See column 9 paragraph 2, the perception system uses the sensor data to detect a sign and determine its type (stop sign or other). This is the characteristic of the sign. See column 9 paragraph 4-column 10 paragraph 1, the vehicle is stopped, which is an adjustment of speed, based on determining the sign is a stop sign that applies to the vehicle.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display with signs sized by importance, including alerting the driver if their driving operation does not match the response required by the sign, disclosed by Alexander, Ephstein, Iwai, Higa, and Song to include stopping in response to identifying a stop sign applicable to the vehicle disclosed by Silver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow the vehicle to operate more safely in an autonomous or semi-autonomous mode, as suggested by Silver at column 1 paragraph 1.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues “Claim Objections
The Examiner objects to claims 8, 10, and 11 for informalities. Applicant amends these claims to address the Examiner's concerns. Therefore, Applicant requests that the examiner reconsider and withdraw these objections.”
As to (A), Examiner agrees that the informalities have been corrected.
(B) Applicant argues “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant traverses this rejection.
The Examiner asserts that claim 21 recites a mental process because a person could perform the claimed steps (e.g., identifying signs, determining characteristics, and displaying them). Applicant disagrees. "[I]n response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, modifying the image data to increase the dimensions of the image, and changing the first color to a second color," cannot practically be performed by the human mind. The Memo dated 04 August 2025 (Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101) cautions examiners "not to expand ... [the mental process ... grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." For example, the human mind cannot practically modify image data to increase the dimensions of an image on a display. In the Advisory Action, the Examiner asserts: Examiner asserts that the new limitation added to claim 21 not mentioned by Applicant, increasing the dimensions in response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, amounts to enlarging a potentially relevant image on a display is further well-understood, routine, and conventional.
According to Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F.3d 1360, 1368-70 (Fed. Cir. 2018), whether the elements (individually or in ordered combination) are well- understood, routine, or conventional is a factual question that requires supporting evidence. Here, the Examiner provides a conclusory statement with no factual underpinning. Without such proof, Step 2B is not satisfied.
Step 2A, Prong One
Even assuming arguendo that "detecting a sign" and "identifying a characteristic" recite a mental process (a point Applicant does not concede), the final step in claim 21 - displaying an image of the sign on a display of the vehicle, wherein dimensions of the image are based on the characteristic
- cannot be performed mentally and is not abstract.
This step is not simply data presentation or a generic post-solution activity. Instead, it defines a physical output that changes size based on input conditions (such as sign characteristics). A human driver cannot mentally produce or perceive this display without technological assistance, and such output has practical use, especially in driving scenarios where signs can vary in size or visibility.
Therefore, claim 21 is not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Even if the detection and identification steps were considered abstract, the final step of conditionally sizing the display image based on a sign's characteristic integrates the concept into a practical application. The claim defines how the output is varied (through image dimensions) based on an identified characteristic of the sign. That is, the claim does not merely "display data"; it controls a visual feature (dimensions) of a displayed object based on earlier processing steps.
Step 2B
In the discussion of Step 2B, the Examiner dismisses the display step as an extra-solution activity. However, this mischaracterizes its role in the claimed method.
First, the Examiner overlooks "wherein dimensions of the image are based on the characteristic," and only considers "display an image of the sign on a display of the vehicle." Therefore, the Examiner has not taken the entire feature into account.
Displaying an image with dimensions based on the sign's characteristic is not a conventional output or just a data presentation. Instead, it involves a specific, claimed relationship between the input (characteristic) and the output (image size). The Examiner has not provided evidence that shows an image of a sign - where the dimensions depend on the sign's characteristics - was well-understood, routine, or conventional in vehicle systems.
Furthermore, under BASCOM v. AT&T, even conventional components can form an inventive concept when used in a non-traditional way. Here, the claim is not directed to generic detection and output - it recites a specific dependent relationship between sign characteristics and display parameters, which changes how the system behaves.
Accordingly, Applicant requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw this rejection.”
As to (B), Examiner agrees that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been traversed.
(C) Applicant argues “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
I. Claims 6, 13, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,773,732 to Alexander et al. (ALEXANDER) and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2009/0190857 to Epshtein et al. (EPSHTEIN). Applicant traverses this rejection.
Independent claim 21 recites "illuminating the sign with a light of a first color emitted from a headlight when the vehicle is a certain distance from the sign; and in response to a determination that an operation of the vehicle has not been modified in response to the image, modifying the image data to increase the dimensions of the image, and changing the first color to a second color." Whether considered individually or in any reasonable combination, ALEXANDER and EPSHTEIN do not disclose or suggest at least these features of claim 21.
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 21 is patentable over ALEXANDER and EPSHTEIN, whether considered individually or in any reasonable combination. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw this rejection of claim 21.
Independent claims 22 and 23 recite features similar to (yet possibly of different scope than) features described above concerning claim 21. Therefore, Applicant submits that claims 22 and 23 are patentable over ALEXANDER and EPSHTEIN, whether considered individually or in any reasonable combination, for at least reasons similar to the reasons given above concerning claim 21. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw this rejection of claims 22 and 23.
Claim 6 depends from claim 21, and claim 13 depends from claim 22. Therefore, Applicant submits that these claims are patentable over ALEXANDER and EPSHTEIN, whether considered individually or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given above concerning claims 21 and 22, respectively. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw this rejection of these claims.
II. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as allegedly unpatentable over ALEXANDER and EPSHTEIN in view of Japanese Pub. No. JP 2009-107543 to IWAI. Applicant traverses this rejection.
Claims 1 and 4 depend from claim 21, claims 8, 11, and 12 depend from claim 22, and claims 15, 18, and 19 depend from claim 23. Without acquiescing in this rejection, Applicant submits that IWAI does not cure the deficiencies in ALEXANDER and EPSHTEIN, as set forth above. Therefore, Applicant submits that these claims are patentable over ALEXANDER, EPSHTEIN, and IWAI, whether considered individually or in any reasonable combination, for at least reasons similar to the reasons given above concerning claims 21-23. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw this rejection of these claims.
II. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly unpatentable over ALEXANDER and EPSHTEIN in view of Japanese Patent Application Pub. No. JP 2009301267 to HIGA.
This rejection is moot because these claims are canceled.
III. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly unpatentable over ALEXANDER and EPSHTEIN in view of IWAI and U.S. Patent No. 9,463,794 to Silver et al. (SILVER). Applicant traverses this rejection.
At the outset, Applicant notes that the Examiner misstates the basis of the rejection. For example, claim 3 depends from claim 21, which is rejected using ALEXANDER and EPSHTEIN - not ALEXANDER, EPSHTEIN, and IWAI. Therefore, the rejection should be stated as claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly unpatentable over ALEXANDER and EPSHTEIN in view of IWAI and U.S. Patent No. 9,463,794 to Silver et al. (SILVER). Claim 3 depends from claim 21, claim 10 depends from claim 22, and claim 17 depends from claim 23. Without acquiescing in this rejection, Applicant submits that the disclosures of IWAI and SILVER do not cure the deficiencies in the disclosure of ALEXANDER and EPSHTEIN, as set forth above. Therefore, Applicant submits that these claims are patentable over ALEXANDER, EPSHTEIN, IWAI, and SILVER, whether considered individually or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given above concerning claims 21-23.”
As to (C), Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Epshtein, in the same field of endeavor and solving a related problem, discloses displaying an image of the sign, wherein dimensions of the image are based on the characteristic (See [0006], business signs are identified in an image. This is identifying the type of the sign, and therefore a characteristic of the sign. See [0023]-[0024] an importance score is assigned to specific types of signs, in this case business signs, and the corresponding sections of the image are scaled based on the importance score. This is changing the dimension of the sign part of the image based on the characteristic. See [0030]-[0031], the system can perform importance-based resizing of the image itself, in this case reducing the size of an image of a map. This is changing the dimensions of the image based on the importance score, which can be the type of a sign and therefore a characteristic of the sign. See [0058], the image is displayed.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for sign identification and display disclosed by Alexander to include displaying the image of the sign and resizing the image based on the type of the sign of Ephstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to preserve the important features of the sign based on its type as suggested by Ephstein at [0006].
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT whose telephone number is (571)272-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/AUSTIN ROBERT CHENNAULT/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
10/30/25
Prosecution Insights