CTFR 18/818,878 CTFR 87653 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 02/04/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites the limitation " the location of the flashing signal" in line 5 and " the location ...of the object" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 10-19 are rejected the same because they depend upon claim 9. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15 is /are rejected u nder 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 2018/01 65957 A1) in view of Ferguson et al. (US 2013/0253754 A1). Regarding claim 1 , Weber discloses a vehicle object and traffic signal detection system ( Weber teaches a vehicle object and traffic signal detection system ([0015], [0016]; FIG. 1) ), comprising: an object detection sensor of a vehicle, the object detection sensor is operable to detect living objects within a threshold distance from the vehicle ( Weber teaches an image processor that detects pedestrians and other objects at or near the vehicle and in its predicted path ([0015], [0016] (machine vision including pedestrian detection); also [0026]), using camera, radar, lidar, or ultrasonic sensors ([0027]). The term "threshold distance" is construed under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, which equates the threshold distance with the working range of the object detection sensor (see application [0026]: detection of a living thing "within the working area of the sensor"; [0006]: "the object detection sensor has a working range"). Accordingly, "detect living objects within a threshold distance from the vehicle" reads on detecting a living object within the region around the vehicle in which the object detection sensor is operable to detect objects. ); a traffic signal detector of the vehicle ( Weber teaches a forward-viewing camera and processor that detect a traffic light ahead of the vehicle and determine its signal status ([0016], [0018], [0021]) ); a display visible by an occupant of the vehicle ( Weber teaches a cluster, head unit, or head up display for viewing by the driver while operating the vehicle ([0016]; [0019]; [0030]) ); and a control system communicated with the object detection sensor, the traffic signal detector and the display to provide a notification on the display when an illuminated traffic signal is detected and when a living object is detected within the threshold distance ( Weber discloses a control system communicated with the object detection sensor, the traffic signal detector, and the display, which controls the display to indicate the determined traffic-signal status ([0018]; [0019]) and which generates an alert and/or a display overlay when an object or pedestrian is detected ([0026]). ). However, Weber does not expressly disclose (1) the traffic signal detector being operable to permit detection of a flashing, illuminated traffic signal; (2) providing the notification when a flashing, illuminated traffic signal is detected; and (3) wherein the flashing, illuminated traffic signal is provided in a single color and is intermittently provided. Ferguson teaches a vehicle system that scans a target area with one or more vehicle sensors — cameras ([0026]; [0067]) and lidar/radar/laser rangefinder ([0027]; [0067]) — and processes the resulting target area information to detect a traffic signal ([0028]) and to determine its state, including determining which single-color object (red, yellow, or green) of the signal is illuminated based on brightness ([0038]). Ferguson expressly teaches that flashing traffic signals — such as those associated with pedestrian crossings, construction warnings, or railroad crossings — may be detected by the vehicle's sensors ([0062]). Ferguson further teaches that, when the vehicle is driven by a user, information regarding the determined signal state is provided to the driver as a visual or audible indication of the light's state, including warnings such as "apply the brakes, the light is red" ([0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the traffic signal detector and control of Weber to detect a flashing, single-color, intermittently-illuminated traffic signal and to provide the corresponding occupant notification, as taught by Ferguson (Ferguson [0062]; [0038]; [0043]), because Weber and Ferguson are in the same field of endeavor (vehicle camera-based driver-assistance systems that detect traffic signals and their states and notify the vehicle occupant), Ferguson's flashing-signal detection is implemented with the same type of forward vehicle camera and image processing already used by Weber (Weber [0016]; [0018]; [0021]; Ferguson [0026]; [0028]; [0038]), Weber expressly seeks to provide the driver enhanced cognitive awareness of the status of a traffic light ahead of the vehicle (Weber [0005]) and already recognizes flashing "red-blinking"/"yellow-blinking" as statuses of interest (Weber [0024]), and Ferguson recognizes that flashing traffic signals occur at pedestrian crossings, construction zones, and railroad crossings and should be detected (Ferguson [0062]); accordingly, incorporating Ferguson's known image-based flashing-signal detection into Weber's system is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way to yield the predictable result of informing the occupant when a single-color flashing traffic signal is present, with a reasonable expectation of success because both systems employ a forward vehicle camera and image processing. Regarding claim 2, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the object detection sensor is a camera, a radar sensor or a lidar sensor ( Weber discloses that the vehicle may include any type of sensor or sensors, including imaging sensors, radar sensors, or lidar sensors (Weber [0027]: imaging, radar, lidar, ladar, or ultrasonic sensors), and that the image processor receives image data from one or more cameras for detecting objects and pedestrians (Weber [0016]; [0026]). Ferguson similarly corroborates the recited sensor types, disclosing cameras, radar, and lidar sensor units on the vehicle (Ferguson [0027]; [0067]). The motivation to combine Weber and Ferguson is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. ). Regarding claim 3, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the system of claim 2 wherein the traffic signal detector is a camera, a radar sensor or a lidar sensor ( Weber discloses that the traffic signal detector is a forward-viewing camera module disposed at and viewing through the windshield of the vehicle and captures image data of the scene exterior and forward of the vehicle, the image data being processed by the control/ECU to detect and identify traffic signals and to determine signal status (Weber [0016]; [0018]; [0021]). Weber further discloses that the vehicle's sensors may include any of imaging sensors, radar sensors, or lidar sensors (Weber [0027]). Ferguson similarly corroborates a camera-based traffic signal detector (Ferguson [0026]; [0028]) and also discloses radar and lidar sensor units on the vehicle (Ferguson [0027]; [0067]). The motivation to combine Weber and Ferguson is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. ). Regarding claim 4, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the traffic signal detector is a camera, a radar sensor or a lidar sensor ( Weber discloses that the traffic signal detector is a forward-viewing camera module disposed at and viewing through the windshield of the vehicle and captures image data of the scene exterior and forward of the vehicle, the image data being processed by the control/ECU to detect and identify traffic signals and to determine signal status (Weber [0016]; [0018]; [0021]). Weber further discloses that the vehicle's sensors may include any of imaging sensors, radar sensors, or lidar sensors (Weber [0027]). Ferguson similarly corroborates a camera-based traffic signal detector (Ferguson [0026]; [0028]) and also discloses radar and lidar sensor units on the vehicle (Ferguson [0027]; [0067]). The motivation to combine Weber and Ferguson is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. ). Regarding claim 5, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the control system is communicated with memory having programming by which the control system can determine the existence of a flashing traffic light from data received from the traffic signal detector ( Weber discloses a control/ECU/processor of the vehicle that is communicated with the camera over a data/communication link and that processes the captured image data to detect and identify traffic signals and to determine signal status ( Weber [0016]; [0018]; [0021]). Ferguson expressly discloses the recited memory-with-programming architecture: a computer system of the vehicle including a processor and data storage that contains program instructions executable by the processor to execute the vehicle functions, including the traffic-signal detection method (Ferguson [0078]; [0108]; [0109]; FIG. 7). Ferguson's stored program instructions, when executed, cause the processor to detect a traffic signal in target area information obtained from the sensor (Ferguson [0028]), to determine which single-color object of the signal is illuminated (Ferguson [0038]), and to detect flashing traffic signals such as those associated with pedestrian crossings, construction warnings, or railroad crossings (Ferguson [0062]). The data so processed is data received from the traffic signal detector — i.e., image data captured by the forward camera that serves as the traffic signal detector (Weber [0016]; [0018]; [0021]; Ferguson [0026]; [0028]). The motivation to combine Weber and Ferguson is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The use of memory storing executable instructions to implement the image-processing detection of a flashing traffic signal in the modified Weber system is, in addition, the predictable use of standard programmable-controller architecture to carry out the same image-processing detection function already adopted from Ferguson. ). Regarding claim 6, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the object detection sensor has a working range that includes one or more blind spots of the vehicle ( The term "blind spot of the vehicle" is construed under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the present specification, which defines blind spots as areas outside the vehicle that are not directly in view of a driver when the driver is seated within the vehicle (see application [0027]). Examples include the area behind the vehicle, areas to the sides of and behind a driver's line of sight, and other areas of limited or no direct visibility. Weber discloses that the system may include a plurality of exterior-facing imaging sensors or cameras of the vehicle, including a rearward-facing imaging sensor or camera, a forwardly-facing camera at the front of the vehicle, and sidewardly/rearwardly-facing cameras at respective sides of the vehicle, each capturing image data representative of the scene exterior of the vehicle (Weber [0017]). Weber further discloses that this sensing system is part of a vision/object-detection system that assists the driver in maneuvering the vehicle, including in a rearward direction (Weber [0015]), and that the system may provide a top-down, bird's-eye, or surround view of the vehicle (Weber [0031]). The working range of these sensors — covering the rear of the vehicle (a region not directly visible to a seated driver and reached only via mirrors), the sides to the rear of the vehicle, and the area at the front of the vehicle — necessarily includes one or more blind spots of the vehicle under the broadest reasonable interpretation set forth above. The motivation to combine Weber and Ferguson is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. ). Regarding claim 8, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1 which includes a source of map data is communicated with the control system to provide a location of an intersection near the vehicle, or information relating to a geometry of an intersection near the vehicle ( Ferguson discloses that the vehicle's computer system has access to a map of an environment that includes information about intersections of roads, and that a geographic location of the vehicle is compared to that map to determine a proximity of the vehicle to an intersection (Ferguson [0025]; [0040]). Ferguson further discloses associating the vehicle's GPS coordinates and direction of travel with a road map of an area to identify a nearest upcoming intersection on the road map (Ferguson [0031]), and that the vehicle has access to a map of known locations of traffic signals stored locally or remote from the vehicle (Ferguson [0041]; see also [0058]). Weber likewise discloses a GPS system of the vehicle that provides the geographical location of the vehicle for use by the control in selecting display content (Weber [0020]). The motivation to combine Weber and Ferguson is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. ). Regarding claim 9, Weber discloses a method of detecting pedestrians near an intersection having a flashing traffic light ( Weber discloses a vehicle traffic-light-alert / driver-assist / object-detection method that processes image data exterior of the vehicle to determine traffic-light signal status ahead of the vehicle and to detect pedestrians and other objects at or near the vehicle and in its predicted path (Weber [0015]; [0016]; [0018]; [0026]; FIG. 1). ), comprising: detecting that a traffic light is presenting a signal ( Weber discloses detecting a traffic light ahead of the vehicle and determining its illuminated signal status by image processing of image data captured by a forward camera (Weber [0016]; [0018]; [0021]). ); providing on a display viewable by a driver of the vehicle ( Weber discloses a driver-viewable display (cluster display, head-unit display, head-up display) on which the control causes display content corresponding to the detected traffic light to be presented, including an iconistic representation of the traffic light's determined status (Weber [0016]; [0019]; [0020]; [0030]). ); determining that an object is present in a predetermined area outside a vehicle, wherein the predetermined area includes an area in front of the vehicle and below a hood of the vehicle ( The term "an area in front of the vehicle and below a hood of the vehicle," as recited, is construed under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, which describes the hood as blocking the seated driver's view of a region forward of and below the hood (see application [0027]). Accordingly, the limitation reads on a region directly forward of and at or below the elevation of the hood line of the vehicle. Weber discloses determining that pedestrians and other objects are present in an area outside the vehicle, using image processing of image data from one or more vehicle cameras and from radar, lidar, and/or ultrasonic sensors (Weber [0015]; [0016]; [0026]; [0027]). Weber further discloses that the vehicle may include a plurality of exterior-facing imaging sensors or cameras, including a forwardly-facing camera at the front of the vehicle (separate from the windshield-disposed camera) and sidewardly/rearwardly-facing cameras at respective sides of the vehicle (Weber [0017]), and that the system may provide a top-down, bird's-eye, or surround view of the vehicle ([0031]). A forwardly-facing camera mounted at the front of the vehicle has a working range that includes the region directly forward of and below the hood line of the vehicle. ); and providing a notification within the vehicle wherein the notification includes an indication on the display of the location and presence of the object ( Weber discloses that, responsive to detection of an object or pedestrian by image processing, the system generates an alert to the driver of the vehicle and/or generates an overlay at the displayed image to highlight or enhance display of the detected object, indicating both the presence and the location of the detected object on the display (Weber [0026]). ). However, Weber does not expressly disclose (1) detecting that a traffic light is presenting a flashing signal in a single color and intermittently on and off; (2) providing on the driver viewable display the location of the flashing signal; and (3) providing the notification including text on the display or audible output that is selected as a function of the color of the light emitted from the traffic light. Ferguson , in regards to limitation (1), discloses processing image data from a vehicle camera to detect a traffic signal (Ferguson [0028]) and to determine its state, including determining which single-color object (red, yellow, or green) of the signal is illuminated based on brightness (Ferguson [0038]), and expressly teaches that flashing traffic signals — such as those associated with pedestrian crossings, construction warnings, or railroad crossings — may be detected by the vehicle's sensors (Ferguson [0062]). A flashing traffic signal so detected is light emitted from the traffic light in a single color and intermittently on and off. Regarding limitation (2), Ferguson discloses determining the location of the detected traffic signal in 3D, including estimating the signal's position in three dimensions using triangulation between successive camera images (Ferguson [0030]–[0035]), and projecting the determined position of the traffic signal into a camera image frame, including using an axis-aligned bounding box that selects the portion of the image in which the traffic signal appears (Ferguson [0039]). Ferguson further discloses that, when the vehicle is driven by a user, a visual indication of the determined signal is provided to the driver (Ferguson [0043]). Providing the projected, bounded portion of the camera image containing the detected (flashing) signal on the driver-viewable display of Weber (Weber [0016]; [0019]; [0020]; [0030]) is providing on the driver-viewable display the location of the flashing signal. Regarding limitation (3), Ferguson discloses that, when the vehicle is driven by a user, the determined signal state is conveyed to the driver as a visual or audible indication of the light's state, including instructions or warnings whose content is selected as a function of the determined color, such as the spoken/displayed warning "apply the brakes, the light is red" (Ferguson [0043]). The selection of the warning content as a function of the determined signal color (e.g., a red-light warning for a detected red object) satisfies "text on the display or an audible output that is selected as a function of the color of the light emitted from the traffic light." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Weber to detect a flashing single-color traffic signal, to display the location of that signal on the driver-viewable display, and to provide a notification including text or audible output selected as a function of the determined signal color, as taught by Ferguson (Ferguson [0062]; [0030]–[0035]; [0039]; [0043]), because Weber and Ferguson are in the same field of endeavor (vehicle camera-based driver-assistance systems that detect traffic signals and their states and notify the vehicle occupant), Ferguson's flashing-signal detection, signal-position determination and projection, and color-keyed driver notification are each implemented with the same type of forward vehicle camera and image processing already used by Weber (Weber [0016]; [0018]; [0021]; Ferguson [0026]; [0028]; [0030]–[0039]), Weber expressly seeks to provide the driver enhanced cognitive awareness of the status of a traffic light ahead of the vehicle (Weber [0005]) and already recognizes flashing "red-blinking"/"yellow-blinking" as statuses of interest (Weber [0024]), and Ferguson recognizes that flashing signals occur at locations particularly demanding driver attention (pedestrian crossings, construction zones, railroad crossings) (Ferguson [0062]); the modification thus uses known techniques to improve a similar system in the same way to yield the predictable result of informing the driver of the presence and location of a flashing single-color traffic signal and providing a color-appropriate driver instruction, with a reasonable expectation of success because both systems employ a forward vehicle camera and image processing. To the extent applicant argues that Weber's "forwardly facing camera at the front of the vehicle" (Weber [0017]) is not expressly placed below the hood line such that its working range covers an area in front of the vehicle and below a hood of the vehicle, it would in any event have been obvious to so place the forward-facing front camera, because placing a front-of-vehicle camera at an elevation that captures the region directly in front of and below the hood is the conventional and predictable implementation detail to detect pedestrians and other objects immediately in front of the vehicle that are obscured from the driver's view by the hood — a region for which Weber's expressly stated purpose of detecting objects at or near the vehicle and in its predicted path (Weber [0015]; [0026]) provides direct motivation, with the predictable result of enabling pedestrian/object detection in the region of the predicted path closest to the vehicle. Regarding claim 10, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the method of claim 9 wherein the predetermined area includes one or more blind spots relative to a driver of the vehicle ( Weber discloses a plurality of exterior-facing imaging sensors or cameras, including a rearward-facing camera, a forwardly-facing camera at the front of the vehicle, and sidewardly/rearwardly-facing cameras at respective sides of the vehicle (Weber [0017]), and discloses that the system may provide a top-down, bird's-eye, or surround view of the vehicle (Weber [0031]). The working ranges of these sensors cover the rear of the vehicle (a region not directly visible to a seated driver and reached only via mirrors), areas to the sides of the vehicle, and the area at the front of the vehicle (the area in front of and below the hood, as construed in the rejection of claim 9) — each of which constitutes a blind spot relative to the driver under the broadest reasonable interpretation set forth above. The predetermined area for object detection of the modified Weber method therefore includes one or more such blind spots. The motivation to combine Weber and Ferguson is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 9. To the extent applicant argues that Weber does not expressly identify any covered region as a "blind spot," it would in any event have been obvious to position the disclosed exterior-facing sensors so that their working ranges encompass one or more driver blind spots, because Weber's stated purpose is to assist the driver in maneuvering the vehicle (including in a rearward direction) and to detect pedestrians and objects at or near the vehicle and in its predicted path (Weber [0015]; [0026]) — purposes for which sensing in regions not directly visible to the driver is the conventional and predictable implementation detail, yielding the predictable result of enhanced situational awareness and collision avoidance. ). Regarding claim 11, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the method of claim 10 wherein at least one of the one or more blind spots is within the area in front of the vehicle and below the hood of the vehicle ( As set forth in the rejection of claim 9, Weber's forwardly-facing camera at the front of the vehicle (Weber [0017]) has a working range that includes the region directly forward of and below the hood line of the vehicle, and that region is "an area in front of the vehicle and below a hood of the vehicle" under the BRI anchored to application [0027]. As set forth in the rejection of claim 10, the same below-hood region — being obscured from the seated driver's view by the hood (see application [0027]) — is a blind spot relative to the driver of the vehicle. Accordingly, at least one of the blind spots within the predetermined area of the modified Weber method is the area in front of the vehicle and below the hood, as recited. The motivation to combine Weber and Ferguson is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 9. The obviousness fallback for placement of the forwardly-facing front camera such that its working range covers the area in front of and below the hood is also as set forth in the rejection of claim 9. ). Regarding claim 12, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the method of claim 9 wherein detecting the flashing signal is accomplished with a traffic signal detector ( In the modified Weber method, the detecting step of claim 9 is accomplished with the traffic signal detector — i.e., the forward-viewing camera and processor of Weber that detect a traffic light ahead of the vehicle and determine its illuminated signal status (Weber [0016]; [0018]; [0021]), as modified per Ferguson to detect a flashing single-color traffic signal via image processing of vehicle camera data (Ferguson [0026]; [0028]; [0038]; [0062]). The camera and processor performing the flashing-signal detection constitute a "traffic signal detector" as recited. The motivation to combine Weber and Ferguson is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 9. ). Regarding claim 13, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the method of claim 12 wherein the traffic signal detector also detects a color of the light emitted from the traffic signal ( Weber discloses that the control determines and identifies traffic signals and determines the signal status, including which of the red, yellow, or green lights is activated as the vehicle approaches the detected traffic light (Weber [0018]). Ferguson similarly discloses that determining the state of the traffic signal includes determining which object in a pattern of red, yellow, and green objects of the captured image is illuminated, including by image processing to determine a distinction between brightness of the red, yellow, and green objects (Ferguson [0038]). The motivation to combine Weber and Ferguson is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 9. ). Regarding claim 15, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the method of claim 9 which includes determining a color of light emitted from the traffic signal ( Weber discloses determining which of the red, yellow, or green lights is activated (Weber [0018]). Ferguson similarly discloses determining which red, yellow, or green object of the signal is illuminated based on brightness (Ferguson [0038]). ) and wherein the notification is provided as a function of the color ( Weber discloses that, responsive to the determined color, the control causes the display to illuminate the corresponding iconistic light and to display the background in the appropriate color (e.g., red background when the upper red light is determined activated) (Weber [0019]). Ferguson further discloses providing the driver a visual or audible indication of the determined color, including instructions or warnings keyed to the determined color, such as the warning "apply the brakes, the light is red" (Ferguson [0043]). The motivation to combine Weber and Ferguson is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 9. ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 7, 1 7 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Web er (US 2018/0165957 A1) in view of Ferguson et al. (US 2013/0253754 A1), further in view of Lash et al. (US 2002/0173881 A1; previously cited). Reg arding claim 7, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose which includes a vehicle speed sensor communicated with the control system to provide an indication of vehicle speed, and wherein the notification includes a recommendation for vehicle speed. Lash discloses a GPS receiver and/or vehicle speedometer/wheel sensor communicated with the controller to provide a vehicle speed indication (Lash [0030], [0032], [0061]). Lash also discloses providing the driver a flashing visual warning on the display such as "WARNING -- TOO FAST" and an audible spoken warning such as "YOU MAY WANT TO SLOW DOWN" when the indicated vehicle speed falls outside an acceptable range (Lash [0038], [0039], [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Weber/Ferguson system to incorporate Lash's vehicle speed sensor and speed-recommendation notification, because Weber, Ferguson, and Lash are in the same field of endeavor (vehicular driver-assistance systems presenting notifications to the driver), Weber and Ferguson share Lash's stated purpose of enhancing driver situational awareness (Weber [0005]; Ferguson [0043]), and a speed-recommendation notification predictably complements the traffic-light and object-detection notifications already provided by the Weber/Ferguson combination — particularly at flashing-signal intersections, where vehicle speed is critical. The combination merely applies known driver-assistance elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of additionally alerting the driver to speed conditions warranting action. Regarding claim 17, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the method of claim 9, but does not expressly disclose which also includes (1) determining a vehicle dynamic including a vehicle speed or a vehicle acceleration, and (2) wherein the notification is provided as a function of the vehicle dynamic. Lash , in regards to limitation (1), discloses determining the vehicle speed by polling a GPS receiver (or, alternatively, via a vehicle speedometer or wheel sensor) and providing the determined speed to the controller (Lash [0032]; [0061]). Lash further discloses that the controller maintains a running average of past speeds of the vehicle and computes the rate of change of speed — i.e., a vehicle acceleration (Lash [0056]). Regarding limitation (2), Lash discloses that the controller compares the determined vehicle speed (in combination with the computed rate of change of speed) against a speed-tolerance profile and provides the driver a notification as a function of the determined vehicle dynamic, including a flashing visual warning on the display such as "WARNING -- TOO FAST" and an audible spoken warning such as "YOU MAY WANT TO SLOW DOWN" when the vehicle speed falls outside the acceptable range and is not the result of a sudden braking or acceleration (Lash [0038], [0039], [0041], [0056]–[0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Weber/Ferguson method to determine a vehicle dynamic (speed and/or acceleration) and to provide the notification as a function of the determined dynamic, as taught by Lash, because Weber, Ferguson, and Lash are in the same field of endeavor (vehicular driver-assistance systems presenting notifications to the driver), Weber and Ferguson share Lash's stated purpose of enhancing driver situational awareness (Weber [0005]; Ferguson [0043]), and a notification keyed to vehicle dynamics predictably complements the traffic-light and object-detection notifications already provided by the Weber/Ferguson combination — particularly at flashing-signal intersections, where vehicle speed and acceleration are central to safe navigation. The combination merely applies known driver-assistance elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of additionally alerting the driver to vehicle-dynamic conditions warranting action . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 14, 16 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Web er (US 2018/0165957 A1) in view of Ferguson et al. (US 2013/0253754 A1), further in view Sweeney et al. (US 2017/0240098 A1; previously cited). Reg arding claim 14, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the method of claim 9 wherein the object is a living thing ( Weber discloses detecting that pedestrians are present near the vehicle (Weber [0016], [0026]). The detected pedestrian is a "living thing" as recited. ), but does not expressly disclose (1) a path of travel of the living thing is determined and (2) the notification is provided as a function of the determined path of travel. Sweeney , in regards to limitation (1), discloses processing situational data from an on-board sensor array to identify pedestrians and to determine a direction one or more of the pedestrians are facing in order to determine whether the pedestrians show signs or expression to cross the road on which the vehicle travels (Sweeney [0080]), and further discloses prediction logic that determines a path or intent of the external entity (e.g., a pedestrian) (Sweeney [0090]). Regarding limitation (2), Sweeney discloses that the output (notification) to proximate parties is generated based on the determined pedestrian movement and intent, including outputs provided via a head-up display viewable through the vehicle's windshield (Sweeney [0081], [0082]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Weber/Ferguson method to determine a path of travel of a detected pedestrian and to provide the notification as a function of the determined path, as taught by Sweeney (Sweeney [0080], [0090]), because Weber, Ferguson, and Sweeney are all in the same field of endeavor (vehicle sensor-based systems that detect pedestrians and generate outputs based on the detection), the modification merely combines known driver-assistance functions according to known methods to yield predictable results, and the combination is well-motivated by the references' shared purpose of enhancing pedestrian safety and situational awareness — particularly at intersections with flashing signals, where pedestrian movement is a primary safety concern. Predicting the pedestrian's path and tailoring the driver notification to that prediction yields the predictable result of providing more meaningful and timely guidance to the driver. Regarding claim 16, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the method of claim 9, but does not expressly disclose which also includes providing a second notification when the object is determined to no longer be in the predetermined area. Sweeney discloses monitoring detected pedestrians as they leave the relevant area, terminating the first/intention output once the pedestrians have passed or otherwise left the area, and providing a second notification — a courtesy or "thank-you" output, visually and/or audibly — once the pedestrians are no longer present (Sweeney [0081], [0097]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Weber/Ferguson method to provide a second notification when the detected pedestrian/object is determined to no longer be in the predetermined area, as taught by Sweeney (Sweeney [0081], [0097]), because Weber, Ferguson, and Sweeney are all in the same field of endeavor (vehicle sensor-based systems that detect pedestrians and generate notifications), the modification applies a known notification-management technique to a known driver-assistance system to yield the predictable result of informing the driver that the previously-detected object/pedestrian is no longer a concern, with a reasonable expectation of success because the underlying detection and notification machinery is the same . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 18, 1 9 is/a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webe r (US 2018/0165957 A1) in view of Ferguson et al. (US 2013/0253754 A1), further in view Choi et al. (US 2019/0071029 A1; previously cited). Rega rding claim 18, Weber in view of Ferguson discloses the method of claim 9 but does not expressly disclose which also includes providing an image from a camera on the display, where the image includes a view of at least part of a blind spot in front of the vehicle. Weber discloses a vision system that includes a forwardly-facing camera at the front of the vehicle (along with rearward- and side-facing cameras) that may provide on the display a top-down, bird's-eye, or surround view of the vehicle (Weber [0017], [0031]). Choi similarly discloses a surround view monitoring (SVM) system that includes a front view camera positioned at the front of the vehicle, between the headlamps, capturing a front view image (Choi [0032]–[0033]), and that processes the captured images to generate an SVM image displayed to the driver on an in-cabin display device (Choi [0040], [0048]). The displayed image — generated from the front-mounted camera positioned at a level at or below the hood line — includes a view of the area in front of the vehicle, which is the front blind spot of the vehicle as construed in the rejection of claim 9 (an area in front of and below the hood obscured from the seated driver's view; see application [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Weber/Ferguson method to provide on the driver-viewable display an image from a front-mounted camera that includes a view of at least part of the front blind spot of the vehicle, as taught by Choi (Choi [0033], [0048]), because Weber, Ferguson, and Choi are in the same field of endeavor (vehicle camera-based driver-assistance systems with in-cabin displays), the modification applies a known surround-view/front-camera display technique to a known driver-assistance system to yield the predictable result of providing the driver visibility into areas otherwise obscured from direct view (including the area in front of and below the hood), with a reasonable expectation of success because both systems already employ vehicle cameras and a driver-viewable display. Regarding claim 19, Weber in view of Ferguson and Choi discloses the method of claim 18 wherein the image includes the area of the flashing signal ( Weber discloses a forward-viewing camera disposed at and viewing through the windshield of the vehicle that captures image data of the scene exterior and forward of the vehicle, including traffic signals ahead of the vehicle (Weber [0016]; [0018]; [0021]), and discloses providing a top-down, bird's-eye, or surround view of the vehicle on the display, utilizing the forward-facing camera and other cameras (Weber [0031]). The image displayed on the driver's display therefore includes the area in which the traffic signal — including a flashing signal, per the modification in view of Ferguson — appears. Ferguson similarly captures the traffic signal in the camera image used for state determination (Ferguson [0028], [0030]). ), and the step of providing on a display viewable by a driver of the vehicle the location of the flashing signal is accomplished by highlighting the area of the image including the flashing signal ( Ferguson discloses determining the 3D location of the detected traffic signal (Ferguson [0030]–[0035]), projecting the determined position of the traffic signal into a camera image frame using an axis-aligned bounding box that selects the portion of the image in which the traffic signal appears (Ferguson [0039]), and providing the driver a visual indication of the determined signal (Ferguson [0043]). The axis-aligned bounding box marking the portion of the image containing the detected (flashing) signal, when displayed on the driver-viewable display of the modified Weber/Choi method, constitutes highlighting the area of the image including the flashing signal, as recited. The motivation to combine Weber, Ferguson, and Choi is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 18. In particular, displaying the bounded portion of the image containing the detected flashing signal on the driver-viewable display is the predictable application of Ferguson's known signal-position-projection technique to the driver-image display already adopted from Weber and Choi, yielding the predictable result of informing the driver of both the presence and the on-screen location of the flashing signal. ). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to new combination of references including new prior art being used in the current rejection. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm. 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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. /RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685 /QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 2 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 3 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 4 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 5 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 6 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 7 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 8 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 9 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 10 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 11 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 12 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 13 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 14 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 15 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 16 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 17 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 18 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 19 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 20 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/818,878 Page 21 Art Unit: 2685
Prosecution Insights