DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 11/21/2025.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 5, 7-9, 11-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAlister et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0054145A1 (hereinafter, McAlister), in view of Laird et al. U.S. Patent 6,647,361 (hereinafter, Laird).
Regarding Claim 1, McAlister describes a method, comprising:
-receiving, by a device associated with a vehicle, data identifying danger zones for traffic signals in a geographical region of the vehicle (receiving location information regarding danger zones (i.e., regions of interest), such as traffic signals in a geographical region of the vehicle, McAlister, Paragraphs 0035 and 0042-0043);
-identifying, by the device and from the danger zones, a set of danger zones associated with a location of the vehicle (determining a set of danger zones (i.e., regions of interest) associated with the location of the vehicle, McAlister, Paragraphs 0035 and 0042-0043);
-determining, by the device and based on the location, a direction, and a speed of the vehicle, whether the vehicle has reached a point of no return with respect to the set of danger zones (vehicle can determine based on location, direction, and speed of the vehicle, if the vehicle has reached a point of no return (e.g., cannot stop before the intersection), McAlister, Paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0043);
-retrieving, by the device, a current location, direction, and speed of the vehicle based on determining that the vehicle has not reached the point of no return with respect to the set of danger zones (vehicle can retrieve current location and various other information such as direction and speed of the vehicle, this information can be used to determine if the vehicle can achieved the point of no return (e.g., can the vehicle stop before the intersection), McAlister, Paragraphs 0042-0043);
-identifying, by the device and from the set of danger zones, a danger zone for the vehicle based on the current location, direction, and speed of the vehicle (determining a set of danger zones (i.e., regions of interest) associated with the location, direction, and speed of the vehicle, McAlister, Paragraphs 0034-0035 and 0042-0043);
-determining, by the device and based on the current location, direction, and speed of the vehicle, whether the vehicle has reached a point of no return with respect to the danger zone (vehicle can determine based on location, direction, and speed of the vehicle, if the vehicle has reached a point of no return (e.g., cannot stop before the intersection), McAlister, Paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0043);
-processing, by the device, a video frame, with a model and based on determining that the vehicle has reached the point of no return with respect to the danger zone, to determine whether a traffic signal in the danger zone indicates proceed, stop, or yield (vehicle can process video frame to determine vehicle location within a danger zone and whether to proceed, stop, or yield, McAlister, Paragraphs 0035, 0043, and 0074); and
-performing, by the device, one or more actions based on determining whether the traffic signal in the danger zone indicates proceed, stop, or yield (device performing one or more actions based on the status of the light (e.g., warning the driver), McAlister, Paragraphs 0043, 0074, and 0096-0098) …
McAlister does not specifically disclose the method to include that the one or more actions comprise: ceasing, by the device, video frame processing based on determining that the traffic signal in the danger zone indicates proceed.
Laird discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Laird describes a video frame processing wherein the system stops processing when it is determined that the traffic signal indicates a green light (Laird, Col. 10, Lines 25-45).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of McAlister to include that the one or more actions comprise: ceasing, by the device, video frame processing based on determining that the traffic signal in the danger zone indicates proceed, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Laird.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because stopping processing when it is determined that a traffic light is green avoids performing needless processing of the system (Col. 10, Lines 42-45).
Regarding Claim 4, McAlister describes the method of claim 1, wherein the set of danger zones are located at predetermined distance from the location of the vehicle (danger zones located at predetermined distances, McAlister, Paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 5, McAlister describes the method of claim 1, further comprising: disabling further processing related to the traffic signal after performing the one or more actions (processing until traffic signal is determined, McAlister, Paragraph 0074 and Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 7, McAlister describes the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the danger zone for the vehicle based on the current location, direction, and speed of the vehicle comprises: comparing the current direction of the vehicle with an orientation of the danger zone; and identifying the danger zone for the vehicle based on comparing the current direction of the vehicle with the orientation of the danger zone (vehicle can determine based on location, direction, and speed of the vehicle, if the vehicle has reached danger zone, wherein the danger zone information is stored, thus comparing locations, McAlister, Paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0043).
Regarding Claim 8, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 9, McAlister describes the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to identify, from the set of danger zones, the danger zone for the vehicle based on the current location, direction, and speed of the vehicle, are configured to: exclude, from the set of danger zones, one or more danger zones not associated with the current direction of the vehicle or that have been recently crossed by the vehicle; and identify the danger zone for the vehicle based on excluding the one or more danger zones from the set of danger zones (determining a set of danger zones (i.e., regions of interest) associated with the location, direction, and speed of the vehicle, this can include excluding areas which are not a concern for the vehicle, McAlister, Paragraphs 0034-0035 and 0042-0043).
Regarding Claim 11, McAlister describes the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: utilize a calibration matrix to translate real-world coordinates of the traffic signal into pixel coordinates within the video frame prior to processing the video frame with the model (matrix map to translate to pixel coordinates of the video frame, McAlister, 0074 and Figure 13).
Regarding Claim 12, McAlister describes the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to perform the one or more actions, are configured to warn a driver of the vehicle about the danger zone based on determining that the traffic signal in the danger zone indicates stop (warn a driver about the danger zone, McAlister, Paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 12 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim (i.e., only one limitation is needed, wherein one limitation is exactly the same as claim 12).
Regarding Claim 14, McAlister describes the device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to perform the one or more actions, are configured to one or more of: schedule a driver of the vehicle for driver training based on determining that the traffic signal in the danger zone indicates stop; or retrain the model based on determining that the traffic signal in the danger zone indicates stop (train model based on traffic signal, just as when to stop, McAlister, Paragraph 0131).
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 1 and 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claims.
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAlister et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0054145A1 (hereinafter, McAlister), in view of Laird et al. U.S. Patent 6,647,361 (hereinafter, Laird), in further view of Putraya et al. U.S. P.G. Publication U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0337435A1 (hereinafter, Putraya).
Regarding Claim 2, McAlister describes the method of claim 1.
McAlister does not specifically disclose the method to include adjusting a video frame processing frequency based on a proximity of the vehicle to the danger zone and prior to processing the video frame with the model.
Putraya discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Putraya describes adjusting the frame rate based on factors such as approaching an intersection or area which requires a faster frame of image capturing (Putraya, Paragraph 0083-0085).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of McAlister to include adjusting a video frame processing frequency based on a proximity of the vehicle to the danger zone and prior to processing the video frame with the model, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Putraya.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because increasing or decreasing the frame rate allows for better detection or the ability for the system to save power, both items desired in image detecting systems (Putraya, Paragraphs 0083-0085).
Regarding Claim 3, McAlister describes the method of claim 1.
McAlister does not specifically disclose the method to include that the processing the video frame, with the model, to determine whether the traffic signal in the danger zone indicates proceed, stop, or yield comprises: identifying a traffic signal location in the video frame; cropping the video frame at the traffic signal location to increase a size of an image of the traffic signal in the video frame; and processing the increased size image of the traffic signal, with the model, to determine whether the traffic signal indicates proceed, stop, or yield.
Putraya discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Putraya describes cropping the input image to account for only the traffic signal (Putraya, Paragraph 0045).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of McAlister to include that the processing the video frame, with the model, to determine whether the traffic signal in the danger zone indicates proceed, stop, or yield comprises: identifying a traffic signal location in the video frame; cropping the video frame at the traffic signal location to increase a size of an image of the traffic signal in the video frame; and processing the increased size image of the traffic signal, with the model, to determine whether the traffic signal indicates proceed, stop, or yield, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Putraya.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because cropping an image allows for better detection of the area at focus (i.e., the traffic signal and the color present) (Putraya, Paragraphs 0045-0046).
Regarding Claim 6, McAlister describes the method of claim 1.
McAlister does not specifically disclose the method to include scaling a portion of the video frame centered on an estimated location of the traffic signal to maintain image resolution while reducing computational load.
Putraya discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Putraya describes cropping and scaling the input image to account for only the traffic signal (Putraya, Paragraph 0045).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of McAlister to include scaling a portion of the video frame centered on an estimated location of the traffic signal to maintain image resolution while reducing computational load, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Putraya.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because cropping and/or scaling an image allows for better detection of the area at focus (i.e., the traffic signal and the color present) (Putraya, Paragraphs 0045-0046).
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 2 and 11 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 The Examiner finds the amendments to the independent claims (i.e., ceasing, by the device, video frame processing based on determining that the traffic signal in the danger zone indicated proceed) incorporates an improvement upon the system itself, thus overcoming the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F. 3d 1299 (2016).