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 .
Application Status
This final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 12 December 2025. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 14-18, and 25-30 are examined and pending. Claims 1, 5, 10-11, 15, and 18 are currently amended, claims 2, 7, 13, and 19-24 are cancelled, and claims 25-30 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as set forth in the office action have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
The claims require more than significant extra-solution activity
The features of independent claims 1 and 11 do not recite a mental process for at least the reason that, according to the analysis of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong One, a claim with limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). See also SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Example 23 (Graphical User Interface For Relocating Obscured Textual Information, provided in conjunction with the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance) demonstrates that claims addressing problems "necessarily rooted in computer technology" are not directed to abstract ideas. The USPTO found Claim 1 eligible, stating it "does not recite any mathematical concept or a mental process such as comparing or categorizing information that can be performed in the human mind" because the claimed invention solved a problem specific to graphical user interfaces through computer-implemented solutions.
Independent claims 1 and 11 are analogous to Example 23 because they address a problem necessarily rooted in V2X communication technology-specifically, the technical challenge of alert accuracy in vehicle-to-everything safety systems caused by sensor uncertainty, timing issues, and dynamic vehicular environments. Like Example 23's GUI-specific solution, independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to real-time V2X communication between vehicles, automated collection of vehicle state data during collision events (including "ego and remote vehicle states"), location-specific rule generation based on actual collision outcomes and driver behavior, and wireless transmission of adaptive rules that modify vehicle alert systems. These operations cannot be performed in the human mind and are inextricably tied to vehicle-to- everything communication technology, just as Example 23's interface operations were tied to computer display technology. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 11 are not directed to an abstract idea but rather to a specific technological solution for improving V2X vehicle safety systems.
Further, regarding amended independent claim 1, the features of "collect event data from a vehicle to everything (V2X) module related to a generated or suppressed alert,""determine, based on the collected event data that includes one or both of ego and remote vehicle states, whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver,""create a rule associated with a geographic location based on the collected event data," and "transmit the rule for use in a V2X application receiving the rule, ..., the rule indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location," cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind is not equipped to collect real-time vehicle state data from V2X modules during collision scenarios, analyze whether suppressed alerts were followed by actual collisions or driver preventive measures based on ego and remote vehicle state parameters, create location-specific rules that indicate specific actions for vehicles within geographic areas, and wirelessly transmit these adaptive rules to modify how V2X applications generate or suppress collision alerts in real-time vehicle communication networks. Therefore, for at least these reasons, independent claim 1 does not recite a mental process, nor does independent claim 1 recite any other abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Accordingly, based on the analysis of Step 2A, Prong One, independent claims independent claims 1 and 11 are not directed to a judicial exception, and therefore qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagree.
The independent claims recite determine, based on the first determination and based on the collected event data whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert; determining, based on the collected event data that includes one or both of ego and remote vehicle states, whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver, wherein the determination comprises a first determination; wherein the created decision is a created rule or based on the created rule; create a decision associated with a geographic location based on the collected event data and based on whether the generated or suppressed alert was an FP, an FN, or a TP alert, the rule indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location. These claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as event data, vehicle states data, alert generation data (FP, FN, TP alert), and generated geographical data regarding road(s) or environment, and avoidance of collision data, could determine/receive, based on the first determination whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert; determine/receive whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver, wherein the determination comprises a first determination; create a decision associated with a geographic location on whether the generated or suppressed alert was an FP, an FN, or a TP alert, the rule indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location. The mere nominal recitation of “a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) module and a traffic rule server (TRS)” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
Secondly, applicant argues Step 2A, Prong 2 as follows:
Applicant According to the eligibility analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates an alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the alleged judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Specifically, "a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Id. (emphasis added). As the guidance explains, "[o]ne way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." Id.§ 2106.04(d)(1). Independent claims 1 and 11 integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application for at least the reason that they include features that improve the functioning of a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication system that provides collision alert capabilities in real-time vehicular environments.
Amended independent claim 1 recites, in part: collect event data from a vehicle to everything (V2X) module related to a generated or suppressed alert; determine, based on the collected event data that includes one or both of ego and remote vehicle states, whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver, wherein the determination comprises a first determination; determine, based on the first determination and based on the collected event data, whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert; create a rule associated with a geographic location based on the collected event data and based on whether the generated or suppressed alert was an FP, an FN, or a TP alert; and transmit the rule for use in a V2X application receiving the rule, the rule used for reducing FP and FN alerts generated or suppressed by the V2X application receiving the rule, the rule indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location
The features of amended independent claim 1 improve the functioning of a system that implements V2X collision alert technology, including as described in the specification: V2X modules associated with vehicles may transmit event data from specific locations related to alerts issued from or suppressed by V2X applications to a central traffic rule server (TRS). The TRS may analyze the received data to determine the amounts of TPs, FPs, or FNs, and may define rules for the V2X applications including confidence thresholds and collision lead times such that the occurrence of FPs or FNs may be reduced, under (sufficiently) similar circumstances, for future vehicles arriving at the same location. Specification [0008] (emphasis added). Therefore, for at least the reason that independent claim 1 includes features that improve the functioning of a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication system that provides collision alert capabilities in real-time vehicular environments, any alleged judicial exception included in independent claim 1 is therefore integrated into a practical application, and satisfies the analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two. Independent claim 11 also satisfies the analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two for at least similar reasons.
Accordingly, based on the analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two, independent claims 1 and 11 are not directed to a judicial exception, and therefore qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 2 and respectfully disagree. The independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of collect event data from a vehicle to everything (V2X) module related to a generated or suppressed alert; transmit the rule for use in a V2X application receiving the rule; receive, based at least in part on transmitting the event data, a rule associated with a geographic location V2X module, a V2X module, wherein the TRS is a computing device and the system is a computer-implemented system. The collecting and receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the determining/planning step(s)) and amount to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited additional limitation(s) of a V2X module, wherein the TRS is a computing device and the system is a computer-implemented system are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, transmitting, and module, elements/steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these elements/steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection under USC 101 is maintained herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, and 14-18 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.
In claims 1 and 11, the recited limitation “wherein the determination comprises a first determination” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner what is the first determination? The next step recites determining, based on the first determination and based on the collected event data, whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive, false negative, etc., however, it is unclear what is the first determination
Claims 3-6, 8-10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12, 14-18, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12, 14-18, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite determine, based on the first determination and based on the collected event data whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert; determining, based on the collected event data that includes one or both of ego and remote vehicle states, whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver, wherein the determination comprises a first determination; wherein the created decision is a created rule or based on the created rule; create a decision associated with a geographic location based on the collected event data and based on whether the generated or suppressed alert was an FP, an FN, or a TP alert, the rule indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location. These claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as event data, vehicle states data, alert generation data (FP, FN, TP alert), and generated geographical data regarding road(s) or environment, and avoidance of collision data, could determine/receive, based on the first determination whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert; determine/receive whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver, wherein the determination comprises a first determination; create a decision associated with a geographic location on whether the generated or suppressed alert was an FP, an FN, or a TP alert, the rule indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location. The mere nominal recitation of “a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) module and a traffic rule server (TRS)” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of collect event data from a vehicle to everything (V2X) module related to a generated or suppressed alert; transmit the rule for use in a V2X application receiving the rule; receive, based at least in part on transmitting the event data, a rule associated with a geographic location V2X module, a V2X module, wherein the TRS is a computing device and the system is a computer-implemented system. The collecting and receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the determining/planning step(s)) and amount to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited additional limitation(s) of a V2X module, wherein the TRS is a computing device and the system is a computer-implemented system are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of collecting and transmitting steps/additional elements and computing devices were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer..
Dependent claims 3-6, 8-10, 12, 14-18, and 26-30 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12, 14-18, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-12, 15, 17-18, 25-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 20230260398 A1) in view of Roca et al (US 20190019412 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Zhou discloses a system, comprising a traffic rule server (TRS) configured to: collect event data from a vehicle to everything (V2X) module related to a generated or suppressed alert (see at least [abstract], [0022-0025], [0056], [0058-0059], [0066-0080], [0085], [0092], and [Figs. 2-3 and 9]), determine, based on the first determination and based on the collected event data whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert (see at least [0085-0087], [0089], and [0091-0094], Zhou teaches when receiving a vehicle generated data, the alert analysis uses a location associated with the vehicle to obtain data and determine if generated data is consistent with obtained data or if the alert is determined to be false (FP).), create a decision associated with a geographic location based on the collected event data and based on whether the generated or suppressed alert was an FP, an FN, or a TP alert (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”); and transmit the decision for use in a V2X application receiving the decision (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”), the decision used for reducing FP and FN alerts generated or suppressed by the V2X application receiving the decision (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”), the rule indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”), wherein the TRS is a computing device and the system is a computer-implemented system (see at least [0053], [0058], and [0066-0072]).
However, Zhou do not specifically disclose determining, based on the collected event data that includes one or both of ego and remote vehicle states, whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver, wherein the determination comprises a first determination; wherein the created decision is a created rule or based on the created rule.
Roca teaches determining based on the collected event data that includes one or both of ego and remote vehicle states, whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver (see at least [0033], “Unfortunately, predefine alert zones can be both over and under inclusive with respect to an otherwise optimal zone of interest for a particular cross-traffic driving environment, resulting in inaccurate detection of a target object (such as providing a false indication of an impending collision or, worse yet, a delayed or inaccurate indication of an impending collision). For example, if target vehicle 402 is traveling at a high speed in a parking lot, the alert rules and settings described would result in a reduced alert threshold 404, and thus a false negative (no alert when one should be issued) could occur. In contrast, road conditions (e.g., traffic light, targets turning on middle lane where vehicles turn into driveways, service drives, heavy traffic, bad weather, etc.) can product slower target vehicle speeds, which will result in wider ‘must alert’ zones and produce an increase in false positive alerts. It is also known that target vehicles in a middle lane tend to travel slower than surrounding lanes. Use of state information associated with target vehicles determined to be in a middle lane may interfere with alert rules based solely on target vehicle speed.”), wherein the determination comprises a first determination (see at least [0033]); wherein the created decision is a created rule or based on the created rule (see at least [0026], [0032-0034], and [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Roca of determining, based on the collected event data that includes one or both of ego and remote vehicle states, whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver, wherein the determination comprises a first determination; wherein the created decision is a created rule or based on the created rule. This would be done to increase safety of a vehicle by utilizing the required threshold(s) for different scenarios while driving (see Roca para 0003).
With respect to claim 4, Zhou discloses wherein the rule relates to one or more of an event location, an event time, an ego vehicle state, or a remote vehicle state (see at least [0027-0028], [0073], [0078-0079], [0085], [0092], and [0096]).
With respect to claim 5, Zhou discloses wherein the event data is selected from a .group consisting of an event location, an event time, an ego vehicle state, a remote vehicle state, a V2X alert generated, a V2X alert suppressed, a collision confidence level (CCL), a CCT, and a combination thereof (see at least [0027-0028], [0073], [0078-0079], [0085], [0092], [0096], and [0118).
With respect to claim 8, Zhou discloses wherein the TRS is further configured to aggregate event data from a plurality of V2X applications according to an aggregation criteria (see at least [0074], [0077-0078], and [Fig. 1]).
With respect to claim 9, Zhou discloses wherein the aggregation criteria includes a location, a date, and/or a time (see at least [0074], [0077-0078], [and [Fig. 1]).
With respect to claim 10, Zhou discloses wherein the TRS is further configured to supplement the aggregated event data with supplemental data (see at least [0022-0023], [0026-0028], [0077-0078], [0091-0092], and [0094-0096]), and wherein the supplemental data is selected from a group consisting of high-definition maps including road and intersections layouts with lane level positioning, road conditions/obstructions, traffic data, weather data, visibility data, or any a combination thereof (see at least [0022-0023], [0026-0028], [0059-0060], [0074-0078], [0091-0092], and [0094-0096]).
With respect to claim 11, Zhou discloses a method at a traffic rule server (TRS), comprising: collecting event data from a vehicle to everything (V2X) module related to a generated or suppressed alert (see at least [abstract], [0022-0025], [0056], [0058-0059], [0066-0080], [0085], [0092], and [Figs. 2-3 and 9]), determining, based on the first determination and based on the collected event data, whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert (see at least [0085-0087], [0089], and [0091-0094], Zhou teaches when receiving a vehicle generated data, the alert analysis uses a location associated with the vehicle to obtain data and determine if generated data is consistent with obtained data or if the alert is determined to be false (FP).), creating a decision associated with a geographic location based on the collected event data and based on whether the generated or suppressed alert was an FP, an FN, or a TP alert (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”), wherein the TRS is a computing device and the system is a computer-implemented system (see at least [0053], [0058], and [0066-0072]); and, transmitting the decision for use in a V2X application receiving the decision (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”), wherein the TRS is a computing device and the system is a computer-implemented system (see at least [0053], [0058], and [0066-0072]), the decision used for reducing FP and FN alerts generated or suppressed by the V2X application receiving the decision (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”), the decision indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”), wherein the TRS is a computing device and the system is a computer-implemented system (see at least [0053], [0058], and [0066-0072]).
However, Zhou do not specifically disclose determining, based on the collected event data that includes one or both of ego and remote vehicle states, whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver, wherein the determination comprises a first determination; wherein the created decision is a created rule or based on the created rule.
Roca teaches determining based on the collected event data that includes one or both of ego and remote vehicle states, whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver (see at least [0033], “Unfortunately, predefine alert zones can be both over and under inclusive with respect to an otherwise optimal zone of interest for a particular cross-traffic driving environment, resulting in inaccurate detection of a target object (such as providing a false indication of an impending collision or, worse yet, a delayed or inaccurate indication of an impending collision). For example, if target vehicle 402 is traveling at a high speed in a parking lot, the alert rules and settings described would result in a reduced alert threshold 404, and thus a false negative (no alert when one should be issued) could occur. In contrast, road conditions (e.g., traffic light, targets turning on middle lane where vehicles turn into driveways, service drives, heavy traffic, bad weather, etc.) can product slower target vehicle speeds, which will result in wider ‘must alert’ zones and produce an increase in false positive alerts. It is also known that target vehicles in a middle lane tend to travel slower than surrounding lanes. Use of state information associated with target vehicles determined to be in a middle lane may interfere with alert rules based solely on target vehicle speed.”), wherein the determination comprises a first determination (see at least [0033]); wherein the created decision is a created rule or based on the created rule (see at least [0026], [0032-0034], and [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Roca of determining, based on the collected event data that includes one or both of ego and remote vehicle states, whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver, wherein the determination comprises a first determination; wherein the created decision is a created rule or based on the created rule. This would be done to increase safety of a vehicle by utilizing the required threshold(s) for different scenarios while driving (see Roca para 0003).
With respect to claims 12, 15, 17, and 18, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claims 4, 5, 9, and 10. As such, claims 12, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 25, Zhou discloses a system, comprising a vehicle to everything (V2X) module installed in an ego vehicle and including a V2X application configured to generate or suppress a collision alert (see at least [abstract], [0022-0025], [0056], [0058-0059], [0066-0080], [0085-0087], [0091-0094], and [Figs. 2-3 and 9]), the V2X module configured to: transmit event data related to a generated or suppressed alert see at least [abstract], [0022-0025], [0056], [0058-0059], [0066-0080], [0085-0087], [0091-0094], and [Figs. 2-3 and 9]); and receive or create, based at least in part on transmitting the event data, a decision associated with a geographic location (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”), wherein the decision indicates an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”), wherein the decision is based on whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP), alert (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”), and wherein the decision is to be used for reducing FP and FN alerts generated or suppressed by the V2X application (see at least [0023] and [0118] “Equipped with the broadcast information; vehicles can locally make a decision in a manner which reduces or may even prevent the occurrences of false alerts. Consequently, vehicle can make a decision based not only on its local awareness of the environment but also taking into account data relating to false alerts previously generated by other vehicles and/or user devices thereby enabling the occurrences of such false alerts to be at least reduced.”).
However, Zhou do not specifically disclose wherein the received or created decision is a received or created rule or is based on the received or created rule.
Roca teaches wherein the received or created decision is a received or created rule or is based on the received or created rule (see at least [0026], [0032-0034], and [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Roca wherein the received or created decision is a received or created rule or is based on the received or created rule. This would be done to increase safety of a vehicle by utilizing the required threshold(s) for different scenarios while driving (see Roca para 0003).
With respect to claim 26, Zhou discloses wherein the V2X application is configured to receive the rule and to adjust its generation or suppression of an alert according to the rule (see at last [0023], [0094-0096], and [0118]).
With respect to claims 28 and 29 they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claims 4 and 5. As such, claims 28 and 29 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 4 and 5 and are incorporated herein.
Claims 3, 6, 14, 16, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 20230260398 A1) in view of Roca et al (US 20190019412 A1) in view of Szczepaniak et al (US 10,239,452 B1).
With respect to claim 3, Zhou as modified by Roca do not specifically disclose wherein the rule includes a suggested collision confidence threshold (CCT) and/or a collision lead time (CLT).
Szczepaniak teaches wherein the rule includes a suggested collision confidence threshold (CCT) and/or a collision lead time (CLT) (see at least [Col. 3 lines 28-63], [Col. 5 lines 31-67], [Col. 6 lines 4-18], and [Col. 8 lines 50-63]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou as modified by Roca, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Szczepaniak wherein the rule includes a suggested collision confidence threshold (CCT) and/or a collision lead time (CLT) This would be done so that drivers may experience fewer false warnings. This improves the user experience and elevates customer satisfaction (see Szczepaniak Col. 13 lines 11-15).
With respect to claim 6, Zhou as modified by Roca do not specifically disclose wherein the event data includes data from a time when the alert was generated or suppressed until one timeslot after a predicted collision time.
Szczepaniak teaches wherein the event data includes data from a time when the alert was generated or suppressed until one timeslot after a predicted collision time (see at least [Col. 3 lines 28-63], [Col. 5 lines 31-67], [Col. 6 lines 4-18], and [Col. 8 lines 50-63]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou as modified by Roca, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Szczepaniak wherein the event data includes data from a time when the alert was generated or suppressed until one timeslot after a predicted collision time. This improves the user experience and elevates customer satisfaction (see Szczepaniak Col. 13 lines 11-15).
With respect to claims 14 and 16, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claims 3 and 6. As such, claims 14 and 16 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 3 and 6 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claims 27 and 30, they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claims 3 and 6. As such, claims 27 and 30 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 3 and 6 and are incorporated herein.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667