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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-11, 15, and 17-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chai (US PGPUB 2025/0078458 A1).
As per claim 1, Chai discloses a computer-implemented method executed on data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (Chai, Fig. 1, and Figs. 10-12) comprising:
receiving image data from a plurality of vehicles, the image data capturing a plurality of traffic signs (Chai, Fig. 1:120, and paragraph 47);
refining the image data by:
filtering the image data to remove unfit image frames of the image data (Chai, paragraphs 4-5 and 27); and
assigning each traffic sign of the plurality of traffic signs captured in the image data to one or more sign groups (Chai, Fig. 1:102:114, and paragraphs 25-26, and 30); and
for each corresponding sign group of the one or more sign groups, processing the corresponding sign group to:
extract, from the corresponding sign group, metadata associated with each of the traffic signs assigned to the corresponding sign group (Chai, paragraphs 5, 25, 37, and 39);
infer, based on the metadata, an intent of the corresponding sign group (Chai, paragraphs 25 and 37);
infer, based on the metadata, a context of each of the traffic signs assigned to the corresponding sign group (Chai, paragraphs 37 and 39); and
store the corresponding sign group in a datastore (Chai, paragraph 76).
As per claim 5, Chai further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the metadata comprises one or more of:
semantic data; color data; positioning; location; dimension; elevation; and shape (Chai, paragraphs 39, 47 and 104).
As per claim 7, Chai further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein processing each of the corresponding sign group further comprises identifying, based on the metadata, a dependency of the corresponding sign group (Chai, paragraphs 4-5, 25-26, 30, and 39).
As per claim 8, Chai further discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein the dependency includes one of independent or supplemental. (Chai, paragraphs 4-5 and 30)
As per claim 9, Chai further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the intent of the corresponding sign group comprises one of: information; enforcement; or caution (Chai, paragraphs 25, 39, and146).
As per claim 10, Chai further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the context of the corresponding sign group comprises one or more of: vehicle type; time of day; vehicle location; and environment (Chai, paragraphs 47 and 104).
As per claim 11, Chai discloses a system (Chai, Fig. 1, and Figs. 10-12) comprising:
data processing hardware (Chai, paragraphs 36 and 208); and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware (Chai, paragraphs 36, 119 and 208), the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations (Chai, paragraph 211) comprising:
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 15, please see the analysis of claim 5.
As per claim 17, please see the analysis of claim 7.
As per claim 18, please see the analysis of claim 9.
As per claim 19, please see the analysis of claim 10.
As per claim 20, Chai discloses a computer-implemented method executed on data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (Chai, Fig. 1, and Figs. 10-12) comprising:
identifying an approaching sign group, the sign group including a plurality of traffic signs (Chai, paragraphs 4-5 and 25);
receiving an intent of the sign group and a context of the sign group (Chai, paragraphs 4-5, 25 and 30);
receiving a vehicle context of a vehicle (Chai, paragraph 36);
disambiguating, using the intent of the sign group and the context of the sign group, the sign group to identify a respective traffic sign of the plurality of traffic signs that corresponds to the vehicle context of the vehicle (Chai, paragraphs 25-26, 30, 36 and 159); and
communicating the respective traffic sign of the plurality of traffic signs to a vehicle control of the vehicle (Chai, paragraphs 24, 34-36, and 104).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, and 12-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (US PGPUB 2025/0078458 A1) and further in view of Stenneth (US PGPUB 2019/0325235 A1).
As per claim 2, Chai further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein Chai does not explicitly disclose each of the traffic signs assigned to the corresponding sign group are located in proximity to one another.
Stenneth discloses each of the traffic signs assigned to the corresponding sign group are located in proximity to one another (Stenneth, paragraphs 46 and 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chai teachings by capturing images of traffic signs, as taught by Stenneth.
The motivation would be to provide a traffic learning sign system with safer, more comfortable and more efficient mobility (paragraph 35), as taught by Stenneth.
As per claim 3, Chai further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the Chai does not explicitly disclose received image data is captured over two or more days.
Stenneth discloses received image data is captured over two or more days (Stenneth, paragraphs 45 and 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chai teachings by capturing images of traffic signs, as taught by Stenneth.
The motivation would be to provide a traffic learning sign system with safer, more comfortable and more efficient mobility (paragraph 35), as taught by Stenneth.
As per claim 4, Chai further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein filtering the image data further comprises:
identifying a plurality of image frames in the image data that capture duplicate traffic signs (Chai, paragraphs 5, 33, 39 and 79-80); and
Chai does not explicitly disclose fusing the duplicate traffic signs captured in the identified image frames.
Stenneth discloses fusing the duplicate traffic signs captured in the identified image frames (Stenneth, paragraphs 41 and 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chai teachings by aggregating image data, as taught by Stenneth.
The motivation would be to provide a traffic learning sign system with safer, more comfortable and more efficient mobility (paragraph 35), as taught by Stenneth.
As per claim 12, please see the analysis of claim 2.
As per claim 13, please see the analysis of claim 3.
As per claim 14, please see the analysis of claim 4.
Claim(s) 6, and 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai (US PGPUB 2025/0078458 A1) and further in view of Kundu (US PGPUB 2019/0272435 A1).
As per claim 6, Chai further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the Chai does not explicitly disclose datastore comprises a lookup table.
Kundu discloses datastore comprises a lookup table (Kundu, paragraph 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chai teachings by storing a traffic signs, as taught by Kundu.
The motivation would be to provide a system with improved sign detection accuracy (paragraph 17), as taught by Kundu.
As per claim 16, please see the analysis of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights