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 .
The instant application having application No. 19/676,132 for AOUDE et al. for “EARLY WARNING AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE” filed July 21, 2025, which a preliminary amendment submitted March 06, 2026 has been examined.
Drawings
Drawings Figures 1-18 submitted on May 13, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on July 02, 2025, September 08, 2025 and December 17, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 Torrington, 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 non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
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).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 19-38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 19/676,132. The difference between co-pending narrow claims 1-20 and the pending broad claims 19-38 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the co-pending narrow claims 1-20 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application’s broad claims 19-38, thus, they are not patentably distinct from each other as set forth in the table herein below:
Pending App. No. 19,275,117:
Co-pending App No. 19/676,132:
Claim 19: A traffic monitoring method comprising: receiving first sensor data captured by a first roadside sensor and second sensor data captured by a second roadside sensor, wherein the first sensor data and the second sensor data each characterize at least one of an intersection or an approach to the intersection, and wherein a field of view of the first roadside sensor is different from a field of view of the second roadside sensor, identifying a first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data and a second ground transportation entity in the second sensor data; transforming at least one of first kinematic data of the first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data or second kinematic data of the second ground transportation entity in the second sensor data into a unified coordinate system, such that the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data are each in the unified coordinate system; and based on the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data in the unified coordinate system, identifying a near-miss condition between the first ground transportation entity and the second ground transportation entity.
Claim 31: The traffic monitoring method of claim 19, wherein transforming the at least one of the first kinematic data or the second kinematic data into the unified coordinate system comprises transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system, wherein the first kinematic data comprises video data, and wherein transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system is based on a mapping between pixels of the video data and corresponding locations in the unified coordinate system.
Claim 32: The traffic monitoring method of claim 19, wherein transforming the at least one of the first kinematic data or the second kinematic data into the unified coordinate system comprises transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system, wherein the first roadside sensor comprises a camera, and wherein transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system is based on a height, global location, direction, and tilt of the camera.
Claim 35: A traffic monitoring system comprising: a first roadside sensor and a second roadside sensor located in a vicinity of an intersection, wherein a field of view of the first roadside sensor is different from a field of view of the second roadside sensor; and a computer system configured to: receive first sensor data captured by the first roadside sensor and second sensor data captured by the second roadside sensor; identify a first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data and a second ground transportation entity in the second sensor data; transform at least one of first kinematic data of the first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data or second kinematic data of the second ground transportation entity in the second sensor data into a unified coordinate system, such that the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data are each in the unified coordinate system; and based on the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data in the unified coordinate system, identify a near-miss condition between the first ground transportation entity and the second ground transportation entity.
Claim 37: The traffic monitoring system of claim 35, wherein transforming the at least one of the first kinematic data or the second kinematic data into the unified coordinate system comprises transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system, wherein the first kinematic data comprises video data, and wherein transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system is based on a mapping between pixels of the video data and corresponding locations in the unified coordinate system.
Claim 1: A traffic monitoring method comprising: receiving first sensor data captured by a first roadside sensor and second sensor data captured by a second roadside sensor, wherein the first sensor data and the second sensor data each characterize at least one of an intersection or an approach to the intersection, and wherein a first field of view of the first roadside sensor is different from, and overlaps with, a second field of view of the second roadside sensor; identifying a first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data and in the second sensor data; transforming at least one of first kinematic data of the first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data or second kinematic data of the first ground transportation entity in the second sensor data into a unified coordinate system, such that the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data are each in the unified coordinate system; and based on the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data in the unified coordinate system, building a trajectory of the first ground transportation entity.
Claim 13: The traffic monitoring method of claim 1, wherein the first roadside sensor comprises a camera, wherein the first sensor data comprises first video data, wherein transforming the at least one of the first kinematic data or the second kinematic data into the unified coordinate system comprises transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system, and wherein transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system is based on a mapping between pixels of the first video data and corresponding locations in the unified coordinate system.
Claim 14: The traffic monitoring method of claim 1, wherein the first roadside sensor comprises a camera, wherein the first sensor data comprises video data, wherein transforming the at least one of the first kinematic data or the second kinematic data into the unified coordinate system comprises transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system, and wherein transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system is based on at least one of a height, global location, direction, or tilt of the camera.
Claim 15: A traffic monitoring system comprising: a first roadside sensor and a second roadside sensor located in a vicinity of an intersection, wherein a first field of view of the first roadside sensor is different from, and overlaps with, a second field of view of the second roadside sensor; and a computer system configured to: receive first sensor data captured by the first roadside sensor and second sensor data captured by the second roadside sensor, identify a first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data and in the second sensor data; transform at least one of first kinematic data of the first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data or second kinematic data of the first ground transportation entity in the second sensor data into a unified coordinate system, such that the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data are each in the unified coordinate system; and based on the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data in the unified coordinate system, build a trajectory of the first ground transportation entity.
Claim 17: The traffic monitoring system of claim 15, wherein the first roadside sensor comprises a camera, wherein the first sensor data comprises first video data, wherein transforming the at least one of the first kinematic data or the second kinematic data into the unified coordinate system comprises transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system, and wherein transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system is based on a mapping between pixels of the first video data and corresponding locations in the unified coordinate system.
Similarly, claims 20-30, 33-34, 36 and 38 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-12, 16 and 18-20 of Co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 19/676,132. The difference between Co-pending narrow claims 2-12, 16 and 18-20 and the pending broad claims 20-30, 33-34, 36 and 38 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the Co-pending narrow claims 2-12, 16 and 18-20 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application’s broad claims 20-30, 33-34, 36 and 38.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 19-38 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-20 of Co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 19/676,132, allowing the broad claims 19-38 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a provisional non-statutory type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact has not been patented.
Claims 19-38 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,678 B2. The difference between patented narrow claims 1-20 and the pending broad claims 19-38 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the patented narrow claims 1-20 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application’s broad claims 19-38.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 19-38 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,678 B2, allowing the broad claims 19-38 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact have been patented.
Claims 19-38 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,749,111 B2B2. The difference between patented narrow claims 1-10 and the pending broad claims 19-38 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the patented narrow claims 1-10 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application’s broad claims 19-38.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 19-38 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,749,111 B2, allowing the broad claims 19-38 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact have been patented.
Claims 19-38 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,257,370 B2. The difference between patented narrow claims 1-24 and the pending broad claims 19-38 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the patented narrow claims 1-24 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application’s broad claims 19-38.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 19-38 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,257,370 B2, allowing the broad claims 19-38 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact have been patented.
Claims 19-38 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-65 of U.S. Patent No. 11,257,371 B2. The difference between patented narrow claims 1-65 and the pending broad claims 19-38 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the patented narrow claims 1-65 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application’s broad claims 19-38.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 19-38 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-65 of U.S. Patent No. 11,257,371 B2, allowing the broad claims 19-38 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact have been patented.
Claims 19-38 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,565,880 B2. The difference between patented narrow claims 1-16 and the pending broad claims 19-38 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the patented narrow claims 1-16 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application’s broad claims 1-20.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 19-38 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,565,880 B2, allowing the broad claims 19-38 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact have been patented.
Claims 19-38 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,235,882 B1. The difference between patented narrow claims 1-23 and the pending broad claims 19-38 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the patented narrow claims 1-23 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application’s broad claims 19-38.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 19-38 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,235,882 B1, allowing the broad claims 19-38 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact have been patented.
Claims 19-38 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,854,079 B2. The difference between patented narrow claims 1-24 and the pending broad claims 19-38 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the patented narrow claims 1-24 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application’s broad claims 19-38.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 19-38 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,854,079 B2, allowing the broad claims 19-38 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact have been patented.
Claims 19-38 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,276,311 B2. The difference between patented narrow claims 1-20 and the pending broad claims 19-38 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from each other. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the patented narrow claims 1-20 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application’s broad claims 19-38.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the broad claims 19-38 of the instant application was fully disclosed in and covered by narrow claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,276,311 B2, allowing the broad claims 19-38 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact have been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 19, 31, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by the Prior Art of RAAMOT U.S. Publication No. 2019/0272747 A1 hereafter “Raamot” in view of the Prior Art of FIELDS et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,163,350 B1 hereafter “Fields”.
As to claim 35, Raamot discloses a traffic monitoring system and method (described in Paragraph 0162) comprising: a first roadside sensor (utilizing a variety of different sensors [i.e. a first roadside sensor], each of the trajectory sensors installed on masts, wires, poles, or luminaires at a traffic intersection, some of said masts, wires, or luminaires also including a plurality of traffic signal heads attached thereto. The system can also include a traffic controller including electronic hardware in wireless or wired communication with the trajectory sensors and the traffic signal heads shown in Figure 2 and described in Paragraphs 0004, 0006 and 0062-0064) and second sensor data captured by a second roadside sensor (utilizing a variety of different sensors [i.e. a second roadside sensor], each of the trajectory sensors installed on masts, wires, poles, or luminaires at a traffic intersection, some of said masts, wires, or luminaires also including a plurality of traffic signal heads attached thereto. The system can also include a traffic controller including electronic hardware in wireless or wired communication with the trajectory sensors and the traffic signal heads, shown in Figure 2 and described in Paragraphs 0004, 0006 and 0062-0064) located in a vicinity of an intersection (traffic intersection environment 200 [i.e. located in a vicinity of an intersection], shown in Figure 2 and described in Paragraphs 0004, 0006 and 0062-0064), wherein a first field of view of the first roadside sensor is different from, and overlaps with, a second field of view of the second roadside sensor (GIS positioning of their field of view. The traffic controller 210 can improve the GIS referencing for these detection systems via two options: (1) GID Referenced: The traffic controller 210 can publish the GID (e.g., at least the part of the database relevant to the traffic controller's 210 intersection and possibly adjacent intersections) to the sensor along with its location and intended approach for detection. This approach can allow the sensor to provide vehicle positioning relative to the GID. (2) Sensor Referenced: The traffic controller 210 can support sensors that provide the traffic controller-referenced data relative to a reference point as determined by the sensor. These sensor references can be the sensor location and aiming direction, a fixed line in the sensor's field of view (e.g., stop line) or some alternate referencing methodology that the sensor vendor offers., described in Paragraph 0235, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein a first field of view of the first roadside sensor is different from, and overlaps with, a second field of view of the second roadside sensor]); and a computer system (the traffic controller 210 described herein, or some subset thereof, may be implemented by a co-processor system (not shown). The co-processor system may be a circuit board, such as a daughter board coupled to the traffic controller 210's circuit board [i.e. a computer system], described in Paragraphs 0065-0066) configured to: receive first sensor data captured by the first roadside sensor and second sensor data captured by the second roadside sensor (the traffic controller 210 is grouped into components shown, including a trajectory calculator 212, a real-time configuration generator 214, and cycle logic 216. The trajectory calculator 212 can compute vehicle trajectories or a trajectory framework (described below) based on data received from trajectory sensors 220, in-road sensors 222, described in Paragraph 0063 and the traffic controller measures traffic trajectories at block 306 using, for example, the trajectory sensors, shown in Figures 2-3 and described in Paragraph 0066, See also Figure 5 described in Paragraphs 0065 and 0067-0068).
Raamot does not expressly disclose identify a first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data and in the second sensor data; transform at least one of first kinematic data of the first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data and a second transportation entity in the first sensor data or second kinematic data of the first ground transportation entity in the second sensor data into a unified coordinate system, such that the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data are each in the unified coordinate system; and based on the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data in the unified coordinate system, build a trajectory of the first ground transportation entity.
Having Fields teaching that discloses aspects of the system and method comprising using electronic sensors (sensors in the vehicle mounted computer or the mobile device or the remote server) located in a vicinity of an intersection of a ground transportation network (intersection, crosswalks) to monitor the intersection and approaches to the intersection (roads, crosswalks, etc.), the electronic sensors generating motion data about ground transportation entities moving on the approaches or in the intersections (acceleration, speed, compass, etc.), including an identifier associated with the second vehicle may be determined based upon the sensor data and the identifier may be used to receive evaluation data associated with the second vehicle. The evaluation data may indicate a quality level associated with operation of the second vehicle. Based upon the evaluation data, it may be determined that the second vehicle is associated with a heightened risk of a vehicle accident. A warning regarding the heightened risk may be generated and presented, by an output device, to a vehicle operator of the first vehicle (described in Column 1, line 66 - Column 2, line 15, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. identify a first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data and in the second sensor data]); Sensor array 326 may be configured to measure any suitable number and/or type of sensor metrics as part of the telematics data. In one aspect, sensor array 326 may be implemented as one or more sensors positioned to determine the speed, force, heading, and/or direction associated with movements of computing device 300 and, thus, a vehicle in which computing device 300 is positioned… generate one or more sensor metrics, sensor array 326 may include, for example, one or more cameras, accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, barometers, thermometers, proximity sensors, light sensors, Hall Effect sensors, audio or video recorders, etc. In aspects in which sensor array 326 includes one or more accelerometers, sensor array 326 may be configured to measure and/or collect accelerometer metric values utilizing an X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis accelerometer. In accordance with such aspects, sensor array 326 may measure sensor metric values as a three-dimensional accelerometer vector that represents the movement of computing device 300 in three dimensional space by combining the outputs of the X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis accelerometers using any suitable techniques (described in Column 16, lines 40-65, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. transform at least one of first kinematic data of the first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data or second kinematic data of the first ground transportation entity in the second sensor data into a unified coordinate system, such that the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data are each in the unified coordinate system]); and begin with monitoring the operation of the vehicle 108 or the environment in which the vehicle 108 is operating (such as other vehicles 202.1-202.N). This may include monitoring the speed, acceleration, braking, trajectory, or location of the vehicle 108 using a mobile computing device 110 or on-board computer 114. This may also include receiving data from sensors disposed within other vehicles 202 or infrastructure components 208. The data may include telematics data collected or received by a Telematics App, as discussed elsewhere herein (described in Column 38, lines 16-25, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. based on the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data in the unified coordinate system, build a trajectory of the first ground transportation entity] ).
Thus, given the system and method of Raamot and having the teaching of Fields disclosing an aspects of the system and method comprising using electronic sensors located in a vicinity of an intersection of a ground transportation network to monitor the intersection and approaches to the intersection, the electronic sensors generating motion data about ground transportation entities moving on the approaches or in the intersections, including identify ground transportation entities in sensors data, transform at least motion/kinematic data of the ground transportation entities in the sensors data, such that the motion/kinematic data in the system, and based on the motion/kinematic data, build a trajectory of the ground transportation entities that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Raamot by incorporating the teaching of Fields such that the system and method of Raamot to provide a traffic monitoring method comprising: receiving first sensor data captured by a first roadside sensor and second sensor data captured by a second roadside sensor, wherein the first sensor data and the second sensor data each characterize at least one of an intersection or an approach to the intersection, and wherein a field of view of the first roadside sensor is different from a field of view of the second roadside sensor; identifying a first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data and a second ground transportation entity in the second sensor data; transforming at least one of first kinematic data of the first ground transportation entity in the first sensor data or second kinematic data of the second ground transportation entity in the second sensor data into a unified coordinate system, such that the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data are each in the unified coordinate system; and based on the first kinematic data and the second kinematic data in the unified coordinate system, identifying a near-miss condition between the first ground transportation entity and the second ground transportation entity, for the obvious advantage of monitoring stated by Fields (Column 34, lines 56-66).
As to claim 37, the combination of Raamot and Fields further discloses the aspects of the system and method of claim 35, further having the disclosure of Raamot that discloses a plurality of inputs that receive sensor signals from a plurality of trajectory sensors at an intersection. Each trajectory sensor can include one or more of the following: an ultrasound sensor, a radar, or a video camera (described in Paragraphs 0006, 0008 and 0059 of Raamot) and further having the disclosure of Fields that discloses Sensor array 326 may be configured to measure any suitable number and/or type of sensor metrics as part of the telematics data. In one aspect, sensor array 326 may be implemented as one or more sensors positioned to determine the speed, force, heading, and/or direction associated with movements of computing device 300 and, thus, a vehicle in which computing device 300 is positioned… generate one or more sensor metrics, sensor array 326 may include, for example, one or more cameras, accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, barometers, thermometers, proximity sensors, light sensors, Hall Effect sensors, audio or video recorders, etc. In aspects in which sensor array 326 includes one or more accelerometers, sensor array 326 may be configured to measure and/or collect accelerometer metric values utilizing an X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis accelerometer. In accordance with such aspects, sensor array 326 may measure sensor metric values as a three-dimensional accelerometer vector that represents the movement of computing device 300 in three dimensional space by combining the outputs of the X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis accelerometers using any suitable techniques (described in Column 16, lines 40-65 of Fields), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Raamot as modified by Fields, in order to have wherein the first roadside sensor comprises a camera, wherein the first sensor data comprises first video data, wherein transforming the at least one of the first kinematic data or the second kinematic data into the unified coordinate system comprises transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system, and wherein transforming the first kinematic data into the unified coordinate system is based on a mapping between pixels of the first video data and corresponding locations in the unified coordinate system, for the same motivational reason/s as stated above in claim 15.
As to claim 19, the claim recites a method that parallels the system of claim 35. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 35 also applies to claim 19. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected by the combination of Raamot and Fields under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 35.
As to claim 31, the claim recites a method that parallels the system of claim 37. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 37 also applies to claim 31. Accordingly, claim 31 is rejected by the combination of Raamot and Fields under the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 37.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following cited arts are further to show the state of related art.
U.S. Publication No. 2017/0268896 A1 of BAI et al, discloses a vehicular communications network for use with at least one source of historical path data relevant to historical conditions of a vehicular path, at least one source of current path data relevant to current conditions of the path, and vehicle location data relevant to a vehicle's location on the path. The vehicular communications network can include a processor that is configured to: access the historical path data, the current path data, and the vehicle location data, determine the vehicle's current location based on the vehicle location data, determine a path pattern relevant to the determined vehicle current location based on the historical path data, and predict an anticipated path condition based on the determined path pattern and the current path data. A communicator can be configured to communicate the anticipated path condition to the vehicle operator.
U.S. Patent No. 6,472,978 B1 to TAKAGI et al, discloses an improved traffic accident preventing system to alarm both a driver on vehicle and pedestrian each other using a radio communication unit when they are located close. This system also provides a traffic monitoring and control system using communication between vehicle, pedestrian with communication unit and radio unit equipped by roadside, in which a traffic management center can send information to a specific vehicle and pedestrian with communication unit, and also receive information from them.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SISAY YACOB whose telephone number is (571)272-8562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30-07:00 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, BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/SISAY YACOB/ July 24, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights