DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Responsive to the response filed November 4, 2025. Claims 1-12 are pending. 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, the Applicant argues:
Argument: Nowhere does Wong disclose or suggest detecting a traffic flow that crosses the traffic flow controlled by a transmitted traffic light signal, nor generating characterizing data for that crossing flow to evaluate anomalies.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. However, Wong does teach detecting a traffic flow that crosses the traffic flow controlled by a transmitted traffic light signal at paragraphs [0020-0022]; cross traffic information is obtained).
Regarding the argument that Wong fails to teach generating characterizing data for that crossing flow to evaluate anomalies, it is noted that this limitation is not taught in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., generating characterizing data for that crossing flow to evaluate anomalies) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong (US 2024/0038065).
As per claim 1, Wong teaches a method for avoiding accidents at an intersection system in the context of automated driving, the method comprising the following steps:
receiving a transmitted traffic light signal, wherein the traffic light signal represents a current traffic light phase of a traffic light of the intersection system and an associated lane (see at least paragraphs [0020, 0096]; states of the traffic light);
detecting a traffic flow which crosses a traffic flow controlled by the traffic light signal, and ascertaining characterizing data of the crossing traffic flow (see at least paragraphs [0020-0022]; cross traffic information);
generating an object list from the characterizing data; evaluating the object list as to whether anomalies of one or more objects of the object list exist with respect to the transmitted traffic light signal (see at least paragraphs [0025, 0023]); and outputting a warning when an anomaly is determined (see at least paragraphs [0049, 0052, 0088]).
As per claim 2, Wong teaches wherein the object list includes position data and/or velocity data and/or acceleration data of objects of the crossing traffic flow (see at least paragraphs [0020-0022]).
As per claim 3, Wong teaches wherein the characterizing data of the crossing traffic flow are determined using a stationary sensor system of an infrastructure system (see at least paragraph [0028]).
As per claim 4, Wong teaches wherein an anomaly is recognized when the evaluation of the object list results in a collective evasive movement of objects of the crossing traffic flow (see at least paragraphs [0025-0026]).
As per claim 5, Wong teaches wherein an anomaly is recognized when one or more objects of the crossing traffic flow have a position or velocity that is not permitted with respect to the traffic light signal (see at least paragraph [0103]).
As per claim 6, Wong teaches wherein an anomaly is recognized when it is determined based on the traffic light signal that the objects of the crossing traffic flow should have a decreasing velocity and/or a velocity of zero, and at least one object in the object list has an increasing or a constant increased velocity (see at least paragraphs [0020, 0106]).
As per claim 7, Wong teaches wherein an approaching emergency vehicle in a lane of the crossing traffic flow is recognized as an anomaly (non-functional descriptive language).
As per claim 8, Wong teaches wherein the warning includes a V2X message, which is transmitted to at least one networked motor vehicle which is guided in an at least partially automated manner and moves in an area of the traffic light, and wherein the V2X message includes an instruction to transition the motor vehicle into a safe state (see at least paragraph [0028]).
As per claim 9, Wong teaches wherein the warning triggers a measure of the networked motor vehicle guided in a partially automated manner, including a reduction of a velocity and/or a prefilling of a brake system (see at least paragraphs [0087, 0088, 0101]).
Claims 10-12 similar limitations as the claims above and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ramsey Refai whose telephone number is (313)446-4867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
RAMSEY REFAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RAMSEY REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights