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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation:
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/14/2026, with respect to claims 1-4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendments to claims 1-4 limitations avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function). The claim interpretation for claims 1-4 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 3/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendment to independent claim 1 does not overcome the rejection. The claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. The claim does not have an control of execution step based on the estimated stop line position as recited in new dependent claim 5 (i.e., The stop line position estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the host vehicle to execute a driver assist control based on the position of the target stop line estimated by the one or more processors). For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant's arguments filed 3/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Ikezawa fails to disclose determining, from the positional relationship between the target object and the target vehicle traffic light, whether the target vehicle traffic light is a near-side or a far-side traffic light, as recited in amended claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As disclosed in applicant’s specification as filed the target object is defined as [0058] The vehicle driver assist device 10 detects a target object (a target pedestrian traffic light 500 or a target crossing vehicle 600, which will be described later) that is a target object other than the target vehicle traffic light 400 which is supported in Ikezawa (e.g., see at least, [0046] The traffic signal recognition unit 11
recognizes a pedestrian traffic signal in addition to the vehicle traffic signal). Ikezawa also determines a positional relationship between the target object and the target vehicle traffic light based on a proximity threshold (e.g., see at least, [0071] When the vehicle traffic signals and the pedestrian traffic signals have been recognized, the stop line position estimation unit 12 determines whether the recognized vehicle traffic signals are positioned before the pedestrian traffic signal by a second proximity threshold).
Ikezawa et al. (US 20210064894 A1; hereinafter Ikezawa) further discloses determining, from the positional relationship between the target object and the target vehicle traffic light (i.e., second proximity threshold), whether the target vehicle traffic light is a near-side or a far-side traffic light (see at least, e.g., [0071] When the recognized vehicle traffic signals are positioned before the pedestrian
traffic signal by a second proximity threshold X.sub.d2 or more, the stop line position estimation unit 12 assumes that the vehicle traffic signal closest to the vehicle M among them is the immediate front traffic signal). Examiner interprets the immediate front traffic signal as near-side traffic light. For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
New claims 5-7 necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/16/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 12/18/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a stop line position estimation device (i.e., a product). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed
to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A stop line position estimation device comprising:
a detector for detecting a target vehicle traffic light and a target object, the target vehicle traffic light being a vehicle traffic light that is installed at a target intersection and that regulates a host vehicle, the target intersection being an intersection located in front of the host vehicle in a direction of travel of the host vehicle, and the target object being an object other than the target vehicle traffic light and other than the intersection and having a predetermined positional relationship with the target vehicle traffic light; and
one or more processors configured to estimate a position of a target stop line based on a position of the target vehicle traffic light, the target stop line being a stop line that regulates the host vehicle and that is provided on a near side of the target intersection so as to correspond to the target vehicle traffic light, wherein the one or more processors further are configured to:
determine, from the positional relationship between the target object and the target vehicle traffic light,
determine, based on the positional relationship between the target object and the target vehicle traffic light, whether the target vehicle traffic light is a near-side traffic light installed on the near side of the target intersection or a far-side traffic light installed on a far side of the target intersection,
when the target vehicle traffic light is determined to be the near-side traffic light, estimate a position that is a predetermined first distance away from the near-side traffic light in a direction toward the host vehicle as the position of the target stop line, and
when the target vehicle traffic light is determined to be the far-side traffic light, estimate a position that is a predetermined second distance away from the far-side traffic light in the direction toward the host vehicle as the position of the target stop line, the predetermined second distance being greater than the predetermined first distance.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. But for the recitation of “ one or more processors” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind For example, “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing a traffic light at an intersection and forming a simple judgement regarding the traffic light position. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as
follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions
continue to represent the “abstract idea”:
A stop line position estimation device comprising:
a detector for detecting a target vehicle traffic light and a target object, the target vehicle traffic light being a vehicle traffic light that is installed at a target intersection and that regulates a host vehicle, the target intersection being an intersection located in front of the host vehicle in a direction of travel of the host vehicle, and the target object being an object other than the target vehicle traffic light and other than the intersection and having a predetermined positional relationship with the target vehicle traffic light; and
one or more processors configured to estimate a position of a target stop line based on a position of the target vehicle traffic light, the target stop line being a stop line that regulates the host vehicle and that is provided on a near side of the target intersection so as to correspond to the target vehicle traffic light, wherein the one or more processors further are configured to:
determine, from the positional relationship between the target object and the target vehicle traffic light,
determine, based on the positional relationship between the target object and the target vehicle traffic light, whether the target vehicle traffic light is a near-side traffic light installed on the near side of the target intersection or a far-side traffic light installed on a far side of the target intersection,
when the target vehicle traffic light is determined to be the near-side traffic light, estimate a position that is a predetermined first distance away from the near-side traffic light in a direction toward the host vehicle as the position of the target stop line, and
when the target vehicle traffic light is determined to be the far-side traffic light, estimate a position that is a predetermined second distance away from the far-side traffic light in the direction toward the host vehicle as the position of the target stop line, the predetermined second distance being greater than the predetermined first distance.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional
limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “detecting…” and “estimate…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the detecting step from external sources are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determine steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “detecting…” and “estimate…” steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of processing data and output from the determine steps, and amounts to mere output, which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity. Lastly, the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. and merely automates the determine step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular vehicle navigation or control problem, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include
additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the determine step… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “detecting…” and “estimate…”; the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “detecting…” and “estimate…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer network component. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-4 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Examiner Note:
Cited references are bold italicized. Examiner interpretations are preceded with an asterisk *.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikezawa et al. (US 20210064894 A1; hereinafter Ikezawa).
Regarding claim 1, Ikezawa teaches a stop line position estimation device (see at least, Fig 1, [0110] stop line position estimation device 101) comprising: a detector (see at least, [0044] The traffic signal recognition unit 11 recognizes a traffic signal by pattern matching using a traffic signal image pattern …for example, an image captured by the camera; *Examiner interprets traffic signal recognition unit as detection unit as defined in Applicant’s specification as filed, e.g. [0048] The image information acquisition device 40 is a device…detection unit…that captures an image in front of the host vehicle 100, acquires an image in front of the host vehicle 100, and acquires data (image information IC) of the image…includes an image sensor 41. The image sensor 41 is, for example, a camera) for detecting a target vehicle traffic light and a target object (see at least, [0010] the traffic signal recognition unit may be configured to recognize a vehicle traffic signal and a pedestrian traffic signal; [0072] a target to be determined is the pedestrian traffic signal…a target to be determined is the vehicle traffic signal; *Examiner interprets a pedestrian traffic signal as a target object), the target vehicle traffic light being a vehicle traffic light that is installed at a target intersection and that regulates a host vehicle, the target intersection being an intersection located in front of the host vehicle in a direction of travel of the host vehicle (see at least, [0043] The traffic signal recognition unit 11 recognizes a traffic signal at an intersection ahead of the vehicle based on a detection result by the external sensor 1), and the target object being an object other than the target vehicle traffic light and other than the intersection and having a predetermined positional relationship with the target vehicle traffic light (see at least, [0010] it is possible to recognize the immediate front traffic signal and the rear traffic signal based on the positional relationship between the vehicle traffic signal and the pedestrian traffic signal); and one or more processors ([0096] the stop line position estimation unit 12 of the ECU 10; configured to estimate a position of a target stop line based on a position of the target vehicle traffic light (see at least, [0131] the stop line position estimation unit 22 of the ECU 20 estimates that the stop line
position is a position from the immediate front traffic signal by the first distance X.sub.a toward the vehicle side), the target stop line being a stop line that regulates the host vehicle and that is provided on a near side of the target intersection so as to correspond to the target vehicle traffic light (see at least, [0006] the stop line position is a position from the immediate front traffic signal by a short distance toward the vehicle side, such that the stop line position at the intersection is appropriately estimated), wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a positional relationship between the target object and the target vehicle traffic light (see at least, 0071] When the vehicle traffic signals and the pedestrian traffic signals have been recognized, the stop line position
estimation unit 12 determines whether the recognized vehicle traffic signals are positioned before the pedestrian traffic signal by a second proximity threshold) determine, based on the positional relationship between the target object and the target vehicle traffic light, whether the target vehicle traffic light is a near-side traffic light installed on the near side of the target intersection or a far-side traffic light installed on a far side of the target intersection (see at least, [0071] When the recognized vehicle traffic signals are positioned before the pedestrian traffic signal by a second proximity threshold X.sub.d2 or more, the stop line position estimation unit 12 assumes that the vehicle traffic signal closest to the vehicle M among them is the immediate front traffic signal), when the target vehicle traffic light is determined to be the near-side traffic light, estimate a position that is a predetermined first distance away from the near-side traffic light in a direction toward the host vehicle as the position of the target stop line (see at least, Fig 2, [0056] when the traffic signal recognition unit 11 recognizes only the traffic signal T1 in the immediate front of the intersection C1, the stop line position estimation unit 12 estimates that a stop line position is a position P2 from the traffic signal T1 by a first distance X.sub.a toward the vehicle side…the side of the vehicle M), and when the target vehicle traffic light is determined to be the far-side traffic light, estimate a position that is a predetermined second distance away from the far-side traffic light in the direction toward the host vehicle as the position of the target stop line (see at least, [0051] When the traffic signal recognition unit 11 recognizes only the traffic signal at the rear of the intersection, the first distance may be set as a distance long enough to avoid a wrong estimation that the stop line is within the intersection. The first distance may be 15 m or longer and less than 80 m…may be, for example, 30 m; *Examiner interprets the second distance of the claimed invention as the first distance), the predetermined second distance being greater than the predetermined first distance (see at least, [0053] The second distance (*i.e. first distance) is a preset distance and shorter than the first distance (*i.e. second distance)).
Ikezawa does not explicitly teach a position of the target stop line, however Ikezawa does define the stop line position as for example, [0005] position of a stop line is a position from the traffic signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ikezawa to include a position of the target stop line as recited in the claimed invention so that vehicle control such as deceleration and stop of the vehicle can be performed based on the appropriately estimated stop line position.
Regarding claim 2, Ikezawa teaches the stop line position estimation device according to claim 1. Ikezawa further teaches wherein: the target object is a target pedestrian traffic light that is a pedestrian traffic light installed at the target intersection so as to correspond to the target vehicle traffic light (see at least, [0010] it is possible to recognize the immediate front traffic signal and the rear traffic signal based on the positional relationship between the vehicle traffic signal and the pedestrian traffic signal); the one or more processors are configured to: when the target vehicle traffic light is installed in a predetermined first range in the direction of travel of the host vehicle with respect to the target pedestrian traffic light, determine that the target vehicle traffic light is the far-side traffic light (see at least, Fig 3, [0061] The traffic signal T3 is positioned at the rear of the position P4 and has a distance
from the immediate front traffic signal T1 equal to or greater than the same intersection threshold X.sub.c), and when the target vehicle traffic light is not installed in the predetermined first range and is installed a predetermined third distance or more away from the target pedestrian traffic light in the direction toward the host vehicle (see at least, [0071] When the vehicle traffic signals and the
pedestrian traffic signals have been recognized, the stop line position estimation unit 12 determines whether the recognized vehicle traffic signals are positioned before the pedestrian traffic signal by a second proximity threshold X.sub.d2 or more…), determine that the target vehicle traffic light is the near-side traffic light (see at least, [0071] When the recognized vehicle traffic signals are positioned before the pedestrian traffic signal by a second proximity threshold X.sub.d2 or more, the stop line position estimation unit 12 assumes that the vehicle traffic signal closest to the vehicle M among them is the immediate front traffic signal); and the predetermined first range is a range from a position that is a predetermined fourth distance away from the target pedestrian traffic light in the direction toward the host vehicle to a position that is a predetermined fifth distance away from the target pedestrian traffic light in a direction away from the host vehicle (see at least, Fig 5).
Regarding claim 3, Ikezawa teaches the stop line position estimation device according to claim 2. wherein: Ikezawa further teaches the one or more processors are configured to, when a pedestrian traffic light detected by the detector is installed in a predetermined second range in the direction of travel of the host vehicle with respect to the target vehicle traffic light (see at least, [0076] The stop line position estimation unit 12 determines that there are pedestrian traffic signals of which the distances from the immediate front traffic signal T6 in the proceeding direction D of the vehicle M), determine that the pedestrian traffic light is the target pedestrian traffic light (see at least, [0076] Since the pedestrian traffic signal T7 is not excluded from targets to be recognized as the rear traffic signal, the stop line position estimation unit 12 determines that it has recognized…the pedestrian traffic signal T7 as the rear traffic signal); and the predetermined second range is a range from a position that is a predetermined sixth distance away from the target vehicle traffic light in the direction toward the host vehicle to a position that is a predetermined seventh distance away from the target vehicle traffic light in the direction away from the host vehicle (see at least, Fig 5 above distance Xc ).
Regarding claim 5, Ikezawa teaches the stop line position estimation device according to claim 1. Ikezawa further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the host vehicle to execute a driver assist control based on the position of the target stop line estimated by the one or more processors (see at least, [0080] When the stop line position estimation unit 12 estimates the stop line position, the vehicle control unit 14 controls the vehicle M based on the estimated stop line position and the detection result by the external sensor 1 of the vehicle M. The vehicle control unit 14 controls the vehicle M based on a traveling state of the vehicle M, recognized from the detection result by the internal sensor 2. The vehicle control unit 14 controls the traveling of the vehicle M by transmitting a control signal to the actuator 3. The traveling of the vehicle M may be controlled by autonomous driving or driving assistance (for example, a driving assistance control of an operation of a brake pedal) of a driving operation of a driver).
Regarding claim 6, Ikezawa teaches the stop line position estimation device according to claim 5. Ikezawa further teaches wherein the driver assist control executed by the host vehicle is automatic braking control (see at least, [0089] the vehicle control unit 14 performs control of the vehicle M, such as deceleration assistance by prioritizing the stop line position detected by the stop line detection unit 13).
Regarding claim 7, Ikezawa teaches the stop line position estimation device according to claim 5. Ikezawa further teaches wherein the driver assist control executed by the host vehicle is alarm control (see at least, [0084] the vehicle control unit 14 may alert the driver using a display, a sound, steering wheel vibrations, and the like. As such, even when the driver cannot visually recognize the stop line, it is possible to assist the driver to stop at an appropriate position according to a change in a lighting state of the traffic signal).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikezawa et al. (US 20210064894 A1; hereinafter Ikezawa) in view of Ogino et al. (US 20190389465 A1; hereinafter Ogino).
Regarding claim 4, Ikezawa teaches the stop line position estimation device according to claim 1. Ikezawa does not explicitly teach wherein: the target object is a target crossing vehicle that is a crossing vehicle that passes through the target intersection and that passes through the target intersection in a direction crossing the direction of travel of the host vehicle; and the one or more processors are configured to when the target vehicle traffic light is installed a predetermined eighth distance or more away from the target crossing vehicle in the direction away from the host vehicle, determine that the target vehicle traffic light is the far-side traffic light, and when the target vehicle traffic light is installed a predetermined ninth distance or more away from the target crossing vehicle in the direction toward the host vehicle, determine that the target vehicle traffic light is the near-side traffic light. However, Ogino teaches this limitation.
Ogino teaches wherein: the target object is a target crossing vehicle that is a crossing vehicle that passes through the target intersection and that passes through the target intersection in a direction crossing the direction of travel of the host vehicle (see at least, Fig 5, vehicle P2); and the one or more processors are configured to when the target vehicle traffic light is installed a predetermined eighth distance or more (see at least, Fig 5; [0050] the available stop distance L1 extending from the farther stop line 42b positioned on the road surface on which the farther traffic light 42a is installed) away from the target crossing vehicle in the direction away from the host vehicle (see at least, [0046] the intersection-entry-permission determiner 22a detects the two traffic lights (i.e., the closer traffic light 41a and the farther traffic light 42a), determine that the target vehicle traffic light is the far-side traffic light (see at least, Fig 5, L2; [0044] The road information on the target traveling course may include a distance…to the farther traffic light), and when the target vehicle traffic light is installed a predetermined ninth distance or more away (see at least, [0046] the closer traffic light 41a is installed at a position apart forward from the own vehicle M by a predetermined distance (e.g., 100 meters) or shorter) from the target crossing vehicle in the direction toward the host vehicle, determine that the target vehicle traffic light is the near-side traffic light (see at least, Fig 5, L3; [0044] The road information on the target traveling course may include…a distance from the closer traffic light installed at the closer
intersection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ikezawa to include determine that the target vehicle traffic light is a far-side traffic light or a near-side traffic light based on a target crossing vehicle that is a crossing vehicle that passes through the target intersection and that passes through the target intersection in a direction crossing the direction of travel of the host vehicle as taught by Ogino in order to determine whether to permit the entry of the own vehicle into the intersection in front of the own vehicle (Ogino, [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martin et al. (US 20220406176 A1) discloses determining whether the target vehicle traffic light is a near-side traffic light installed on the near side of the target intersection or a far-side traffic light installed on a far side of the target intersection (e.g. [0039] traffic signals or traffic
lights that are both on the near and far side of the intersection).
Che et al. (US 20230184560 A1 ) discloses the target object is a target pedestrian traffic light that is a pedestrian traffic light installed at the target intersection so as to correspond to the target vehicle traffic light (e.g.[0107] The images are recognized to obtain the states of pedestrian traffic lights. The state of the traffic light, in front of the target vehicle, for instructing the driving of the target vehicle is determined according to the states of the pedestrian traffic lights).
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 TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights