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 .
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action dated 04/20/2026, as well as amendment to claims, filed on 07/07/2026 have been entered and made of record.
In light of Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending, with Claim 21 being new. Claim 10 is are canceled.
Response to Arguments
In light of claim amendments, i.e., incorporation of the indicated allowable subject matter of objected to dependent claims into independent claims, Applicant's arguments filed on July 7, 2026, with respect to rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 and based on non-statutory double patenting over claims of the parent Patent No. 11,694,430 has been withdrawn. Therefore, Claims 1-0 and 11-20 are allowed. However, as presented below, the newly added Claim 21 is rejected based on non-statutory double patent over claims of the parent U.S. Patent No. 11,694,430. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time-wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). In order to expedite the processing/approval of the terminal disclaimer, Applicants may choose to file an electronic terminal disclaimer (eTerminal Disclaimer) by referring to the following website:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 6 of the parent U.S. Patent No. 11,694,430. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because Claim 21 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claims of the U.S. Patent No. 11,694,430. The following chart compares Claim 21 of the instant application with Claim 6 of the Patent No. 11,694,430.
Instant Application
Patent Application No. 11,694,430
21. A method comprising:
converting an input image to hue, saturation, and value (HSV) color space;
filtering a saturation channel of the input image to generate a filtered image, wherein filtering the saturation channel of the input image to generate the filtered image comprises filtering the saturation channel with a plurality of different size thresholds to generate a plurality of filtered images;
extracting a frame contour from the filtered image to identify a region of interest; and
feeding the region of interest to a neural network trained to classify a brake light as on or off.
1.A method comprising: calculating an average pixel brightness of a plurality of pixels in an upper region of an image;
determining whether the average pixel brightness exceeds a threshold value;
extracting a feature map from the image in response to determining the average pixel brightness exceeds the threshold value; and
determining whether a region of interest identified in the feature map comprises a depiction of a brake light of a vehicle.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the image comprises the depiction of the brake light of the vehicle comprises:
converting the image to hue, saturation, and value (HSV) color space to generate a converted image;
filtering a saturation channel of the converted image with one or more different sizes to generate one or more filtered images; and
extracting the region of interest from at least one of the one or more filtered images.
6 The method of claim 4, further comprising:
feeding the region of interest to a neural network trained on a dataset comprising a plurality of brake lights;
receiving as output from the neural network an indication of whether the region of interest comprises a positive brake light that is turned on or a negative brake light that is not turned on.
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 extension fee 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 Siamak HARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 - 6:00 ET.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights