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 . 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.
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.
Claim(s) 30, 35, 37-44 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 2013/0256466 A1) in view of Feris (US 2014/0003724 A1).
Referring to Claim 30: Carlson teaches an automotive traffic control system operative with respect to at least one warning light (30) at a first location along a roadway (20), the automotive traffic control system comprising:
a
wherein the
While Carlson emphasizes automatic monitoring of the crossing using video cameras 70 (see, e.g., Para. [0007], [0021], [0061] and [0066]) (Fig. 8), Carlson does not specifically teach a processor-based video analytic system. However, Feris teaches a system and method for detecting objects on a railroad crossing, wherein a processor (538) is used to analyze video images (102, 104), through optical flow/pixel movement (Para. [0027]), to detect moving, static and blended objects within the railroad crossing (Para. [0032], [0034] and [0037], respectively). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to use a processor-based video analytic system, such as the one taught by Feris, in order to automatically detect static and moving objects at railway crossings using computer vision techniques and thereby enhance safety through automated processes with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See MPEP § 2144.04(III).
Referring to Claim 35: Carlson in view of Feris, as applied to claim 30, further teaches the automotive traffic control system, wherein the at least one warning light comprises a plurality of warning lights (Carlson, Para. [0021]), the processor-based video analytic sensor system (Feris, 538) simultaneously sensing a proper operation of the plurality of warning lights (Carlson, Para. [0021]).
Referring to Claim 37: Carlson in view of Feris, as applied to claim 35, further teaches the plurality of warning lights includes at least one stationary light (“signal roundel lights”) and at least one moving light (“gate lights”) (Carlson, Para. [0034]) (see also Carlson, Para. [0021]).
Referring to Claim 38: Carlson in view of Feris, as applied to claim 35, further teaches the plurality of warning lights includes a plurality of moving lights (“gate lights”) (Carlson, Para. [0034]) (see also Carlson, Para. [0021]).
Referring to Claim 39: Carlson in view of Feris, as applied to claim 30, further teaches the at least one warning light is a railroad crossing warning light (“gate lights”) (Carlson, Para. [0034]) (see also Carlson, Para. [0021]).
Referring to Claim 40: Carlson in view of Feris, as applied to claim 30, further teaches the at least one warning light is associated with a railroad crossing gate (“gate lights”) (Carlson, Para. [0034]) (see also Carlson, Para. [0021]).
Referring to Claim 41: Carlson teaches that the system is configured to determine a raised or lowered position of the railroad crossing gate (Para. [0059]), but does not specifically teach that the processor-based video analytic system is configured to determine a raised or lowered position of the railroad crossing gate based on a detected change in position of the at least one warning light.
However, Feris teaches a system and method for detecting objects on a railroad crossing, wherein a processor (538) is used to analyze video images (102, 104), through optical flow/pixel movement (Para. [0027]), to detect moving, static and blended objects within the railroad crossing (Para. [0032], [0034] and [0037], respectively). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to use a processor-based video analytic system, such as the one taught by Feris, in order to automatically detect static and moving objects, such as a warning light that has changed position, at railway crossings using computer vision techniques and thereby enhance safety through automated processes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 42: Carlson in view of Feris, as applied to claim 41, further teaches automotive traffic control system, wherein the processor-based video analytic system (Feris, 538) is further configured to determine a broken or malfunctioning railroad crossing gate (not “operating properly”) based on the analyzed images (Carlson, Para. [0021]).
Referring to Claim 43: Carlson in view of Feris, as applied to claim 42, further teaches automotive traffic control system, wherein the processor-based video analytic system (Feris, 538) is configured to generate an alarm signal when the broken or malfunctioning railroad crossing gate is detected (Carlson, Para. [0032], last two sentences).
Referring to Claim 44: Carlson does not specifically teach that the processor-based video analytic system is further configured to detect a train occupancy at a railroad crossing based on the analyzed images.
However, Feris teaches a system and method for detecting objects on a railroad crossing, wherein a processor (538) is used to analyze video images (102, 104), through optical flow/pixel movement (Para. [0027]), to detect moving, static and blended objects within the railroad crossing (Para. [0032], [0034] and [0037], respectively) including “a train car or other railway vehicle moving along the tracks” (Para. [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to use a processor-based video analytic system, such as the one taught by Feris, in order to automatically detect railcars occupying the crossing while moving along the tracks using computer vision techniques and thereby enhance safety through automated processes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 52: Carlson in view of Feris, as applied to claim 30, further teaches automotive traffic control system, wherein the processor-based video analytic system (Feris, 538) is configured to communicate wirelessly with the traffic control device (Carlson, Para. [0005]).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Feris and Bhotika et al. (US 2010/0027009 A1).
Referring to Claim 31: Carlson does not specifically teach that the processor-based video analytic sensor system is configured to analyze images of the at least one warning light to detect a proper operation thereof via detection of an expected warning light color. However, Bhotika teaches a method and system for detecting signal color, wherein “processor 24 processes and analyzes the video signal and detects the signal color.” (Para. [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to configure the processor to detect warning light colors, as taught by Bhotika, in order to automatically detect the color associated with warning light and thereby enhance monitoring operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 32 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Feris and Davenport (US 7,123,165).
Referring to Claim 32: While Carlson teaches automatically recognizing proper operation of the lights along the gate using video cameras (Para. [0021] and [0007]), Carlson does not specifically teach that the processor-based video analytic sensor system is configured to analyze images of the at least one warning light to detect a proper operation thereof via detection of an expected warning light flashing frequency.
However, Davenport teaches an apparatus and method for monitoring the output of a warning or indicator light, “and in order to determine if the warning systems are operating properly (e.g., a warning light is flashing when a signal of an oncoming train is received) a plurality of sensors are also provided to detect proper operation of the various components of the signal post 10.” (Col. 4, line 65 – Col. 5, line 2). Further, Davenport teaches, “A photo sensor 28 is located proximate to warning light 18 for detecting when light 18 is emitting a predetermined pattern of light energy.” (Col. 5, lines 9-11). Thus, Davenport teaches that proper operation of warning lights includes flashing and also teaches light sensors for detecting a predetermined pattern of light energy, e.g., flashing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to configure the processor-based device to recognize proper operation of the gate lights in the form of a flashing pattern, as taught by Davenport, in order to ensure the lights are flashing in a proper pattern, i.e., frequency, to warn motorists effectively with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 36: While Carlson teaches automatically recognizing proper operation of the lights along the gate using video cameras (Para. [0021] and [0007]), Carlson does not specifically teach at least one flashing light and at least one non-flashing light.
However, Davenport teaches an apparatus and method for monitoring the output of a warning or indicator light, “and in order to determine if the warning systems are operating properly (e.g., a warning light is flashing when a signal of an oncoming train is received) a plurality of sensors are also provided to detect proper operation of the various components of the signal post 10.” (Col. 4, line 65 – Col. 5, line 2). Further, Davenport teaches, “A photo sensor 28 is located proximate to warning light 18 for detecting when light 18 is emitting a predetermined pattern of light energy.” (Col. 5, lines 9-11). Thus, Davenport teaches that proper operation of warning lights includes flashing and also teaches light sensors for detecting a predetermined pattern of light energy, e.g., flashing or non-flashing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to configure the processor-based device to recognize proper operation of the gate lights in the form of a flashing or non-flashing patterns, as taught by Davenport, in order to ensure the lights are operating in a proper pattern, i.e., frequency, to warn motorists effectively with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Feris and Kisak et al. (US 2003/0222981 A1).
Referring to Claim 33: Carlson does not specifically teach that the processor-based video analytic sensor system is configured to analyze images of the at least one warning light to detect a proper operation thereof via detection of an expected wavelength of light. However, Kisak teaches a locomotive wireless video recording system wherein a database is employed to compare acquired video data with proper “operation of the wayside device (e.g., lights are operating, horn or bell is operating, the crossing gate arms are moving etc.)” (emphasis added) (Para. [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to configure the processor to detect that the lights are operating and moving along the expected crossing gate arm path, as suggested by Kisak, in order to correlate acquired data with selected crossing safety events to ensure proper operation of the crossing and thereby enhance monitoring operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Feris and Fries et al. (US 2010/0258682 A1).
Referring to Claim 34: Carlson does not specifically teach that the processor-based video analytic sensor system is configured to analyze images of the at least one warning light to detect a proper operation thereof via detection of an expected wavelength of light. However, Fries teaches a system and method for interfacing a wayside signal device with a vehicle control system, wherein “[e]ach of the light signals comprises light in an at least partially unique wavelength, meaning there may be some spectral overlap, but that each light signal includes at least some light in a wavelength that the others do not. Here, in one embodiment of the interface system, the sensor system comprises a plurality of optical sensors operably coupled to the light signal output unit. Each of the optical sensors is configured for detecting the at least partially unique wavelength of a respective one of the light signals output by the light signal output unit.” (Para. [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to configure the processor to detect an expected wavelength of light, as taught by Fries, in order to automatically detect the color associated with the wavelength of the warning light and thereby enhance monitoring operations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 45-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Feris and Uhlmann et al. (US 2003/0191583 A1).
Referring to Claim 45: Carlson does not specifically teach that the traffic control device is a traffic intersection controller, the traffic intersection controller being responsive to a preemption signal generated by the video analytic sensor system to enhance automotive vehicle safety proximate the first location or to avoid an unnecessary automotive traffic disruption due to the operation of the at least one warning light. However, Uhlmann teaches a vehicle-based navigation system, wherein the dynamic train crossing control system (50) communicates with automobiles (58) equipped with navigational systems (60) (Fig. 5) (Para. [0020]) and “can be utilized to control traffic approach to any form of intersection besides a rail/road intersection. For example, a road traffic control system can utilize the concepts described above to dynamically control operation of traffic lights at an intersection” (Para. [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to use the automotive traffic control system to communicate with a traffic intersection controller to dynamically control the approach to intersections and the operation of traffic lights, as taught by Uhlmann, in order to preempt normal traffic light operation and thereby enhance safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 46: Carlson does not specifically teach that the traffic intersection controller is responsive to the preemption signal to operate at least one traffic control signal to clear an intersection at a location proximate the first location and enhance automotive vehicle safety. However, Uhlmann teaches a vehicle-based navigation system, wherein the dynamic train crossing control system (50) communicates with automobiles (58) equipped with navigational systems (60) (Fig. 5) (Para. [0020]) and “can be utilized to control traffic approach to any form of intersection besides a rail/road intersection. For example, a road traffic control system can utilize the concepts described above to dynamically control operation of traffic lights at an intersection” (Para. [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to use the automotive traffic control system to communicate with a traffic intersection controller to dynamically control the approach to intersections and the operation of traffic lights, as taught by Uhlmann, in order to clear intersections and thereby enhance safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 47: Carlson does not specifically teach that the traffic intersection controller is responsive to the preemption signal to terminate a Track Clearance Green signal proximate the first location, thereby avoiding an unnecessary automotive traffic disruption due to the operation of the at least one warning light. However, Uhlmann teaches a vehicle-based navigation system, wherein the dynamic train crossing control system (50) communicates with automobiles (58) equipped with navigational systems (60) (Fig. 5) (Para. [0020]) and “can be utilized to control traffic approach to any form of intersection besides a rail/road intersection. For example, a road traffic control system can utilize the concepts described above to dynamically control operation of traffic lights at an intersection” (Para. [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to use the automotive traffic control system to communicate with a traffic intersection controller to dynamically control the approach to intersections and the operation of traffic lights, as taught by Uhlmann, in order to terminate green signals and thereby enhance safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 48: Carlson does not specifically teach that the traffic intersection controller is responsive to the preemption signal to resume traffic flow through an adjacent roadway intersection that does not include the first location. However, Uhlmann teaches a vehicle-based navigation system, wherein the dynamic train crossing control system (50) communicates with automobiles (58) equipped with navigational systems (60) (Fig. 5) (Para. [0020]) and “can be utilized to control traffic approach to any form of intersection besides a rail/road intersection. For example, a road traffic control system can utilize the concepts described above to dynamically control operation of traffic lights at an intersection” (Para. [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to use the automotive traffic control system to communicate with a traffic intersection controller to dynamically control the approach to intersections and the operation of traffic lights, as taught by Uhlmann, in order to resume traffic flow through an adjacent roadway intersection and thereby enhance traffic flow and safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 49: Carlson does not specifically teach that the traffic control device is an automotive navigation decision and route selection device. However, Uhlmann teaches a vehicle-based navigation system, wherein the dynamic train crossing control system (50) communicates with automobiles (58) equipped with navigational systems (60) (Fig. 5) (Para. [0020]) and “can be utilized to control traffic approach to any form of intersection besides a rail/road intersection. For example, a road traffic control system can utilize the concepts described above to dynamically control operation of traffic lights at an intersection” (Para. [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to use the automotive traffic control system to communicate with automotive navigation systems, as taught by Uhlmann, in order to “assist road safety” (see Uhlmann, Para. [0021]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 50: Carlson does not specifically teach that the traffic control device is associated with an emergency vehicle. However, Uhlmann teaches a vehicle-based navigation system, wherein the dynamic train crossing control system (50) communicates with automobiles (58) (Fig. 5) (Para. [0020]), and “emergency vehicles such as police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, and the like, can communicate via wireless communication . . . thus avoiding potential traffic congestion for vehicle 12, and potential traffic impediment for the emergency vehicle seeking to reach the emergency event.” (Para. [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to use the automotive traffic control system to communicate with emergency vehicles, as taught by Uhlmann, in order to avoid potential traffic congestion and impediments of the emergency vehicle (see Uhlmann, Para. [0018]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Feris and Hilleary et al. (US 2013/0018534 A1) (hereinafter Hilleary ‘534).
Referring to Claim 51: Carlson does not specifically teach that the traffic control device is a dispatch device for a delivery vehicle. However, Hilleary ‘534 teaches methods and systems for detection and notification of blocked rail crossings, wherein the local crossing processor (106) operates “to detect potential obstruction situations within the crossing island and communicate such detections to, for example, a railroad dispatch center 114 (FIG. 1)” (Para. [0028]). Examiner notes that a railroad dispatch center may be reasonably interpreted as a dispatch device for a delivery vehicle as railroad trains are a type of delivery vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Carlson to use the automotive traffic control system to communicate with a railroad dispatch center, as taught by Hilleary ‘534, in order to enhance safety to the benefit of locomotive engineers and delivery systems with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
Prosecution Insights