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 30 April 2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 14-18, and 25-30 are examined and pending. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 14, and 25-30 are currently amended and claims 2, 7, 13, and 19-24 are cancelled.
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
See Office Action, p. 11. However, the features of independent claims 1, 11, and 25 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).
The features of amended independent claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For example, 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 whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive
(FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert based at least in part on whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed
and preventive measures were taken by a driver; and
transmit feedback data to enable a V2X application executed on a processor
to reduce FP and FN alerts generated or suppressed by the V2X application, the feedback data indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within a geographic location to adjust a collision confidence threshold (CCT) and a collision lead time (CLT) based at least in part on a respective ego vehicle state, a respective
remote vehicle state, or both.
The human mind is not equipped to "collect event data from a vehicle to everything (V2X) module related to a generated or suppressed alert," as recited in amended independentPage 9 of
claim 1. For example, as described in the Specification, event data may include "event location, event time (where 'time' includes one or more of date, day and time of day), ego-vehicle state, remote vehicle states, V2X alerts generated, V2X alerts suppressed (due to not passing the CCT), CCL, CLT, and CCT." Specification [0050]. The Specification further describes that "event data may cover a period from when the application began determining whether to issue or suppress an alert to at least several seconds after the determined event was due to occur" and "vehicle states (ego and remote) that are part of an event may cover a period of time and thus include a collection of vehicle states that may be collected periodically at collection timeslots (typically every 100 ms) from time 0 to time N+1." Id. [0051].
The Office Action alleges that "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 .. . whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert" and "create a decision associated with a geographic location on whether the generated or suppressed alert was an FP, an FN, or a TP alert." Office Action, p. 11. However, no person is capable of collecting real-time event data from moving vehicles, let alone determining 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 based at least in part on whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver," as recited in amended independent claim 1. That is, the human mind is not equipped to analyze such a collection of event data, much less to make a determination of whether "a collision occurred" or whether "preventive measures were taken by a driver" based on such analysis.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, amended 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.
The examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagree.
The independent claims recite determine, whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert based at least in part on whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver. 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; could determine, whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert based at least in part on whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver. 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:
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, 11, and 25 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.
Regarding amended independent claim 1, the features of "transmit[ting] feedback data to enable a V2X application executed on a processor to reduce FP and FN alerts generated or suppressed by the V2X application, the feedback data indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location to adjust a collision confidence threshold (CCT) and a collision lead time (CLT) based at least in part on a respective ego vehicle state, a respective remote vehicle state, or both," improve the functioning of a system that implements V2X collision alert technology, including as described in the Specification:
In step 206 rules may be defined by the TRS to eliminate or reduce FPs or
FNs under (sufficiently) similar circumstances for vehicles arriving at the same location in the future. For example, based on the analysis, if an FP was likely (in a particular scenario), the CCT would be increased whereas if an FN was likely, the CCT would be decreased. A non-limiting example of a rule may state: if the ego vehicle's state (S) is Se and the states of remote-vehicles 1 ... m are Srl .. Sn, then the CCT should be set to CCT% and CLT should be set to CLTsec where a vehicle's state (S) is defined as a set of parameters {Si, S2, .. Sn} and a
corresponding set of confidence levels {Ci, C2, .. Cn}.
Specification [0053] (emphasis added).
Example 40 (Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data, provided in conjunction with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) demonstrates that even in cases in which "each of the collecting steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere pre- or post- solution activity," a claim that "provides a specific improvement over prior systems" amounts to more than a judicial exception. The USPTO found Claim 1 eligible because "the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition" after which the collected data "can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition," resulting in improved network monitoring.
Amended independent claim 1 is analogous to Example 40 because it describes a specific improvement to a vehicle safety system that eliminates or reduces FP and FN alerts for vehicles within a V2X communication system. Like the specialized collection techniques described in Example 40, the features recited in the independent claims represent specific improvements to prior systems. For example, the claimed TRS does not merely process data but determines actions taken by a driver after an alert based on the data, determines whether the alert was a FP or FN based on the data, and transmits feedback data to enable other vehicles within a geographic location to eliminate or reduce FP and FN alerts.
Therefore, for at least the reason that amended independent claim 1 includes features that improve the functioning of a V2X communication system, any alleged judicial exception included in amended independent claim 1 is therefore integrated into a practical application, and satisfies the analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 2 and respectfully disagree. The independent claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitations of collecting event data from a vehicle to everything (V2X) module related to a generated or suppressed alert; transmit feedback data decision to enable a V2X application executed on a processor to reduce FP and FN alerts generated or suppressed by the V2X application, the feedback data indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within a geographic location to adjust a collision confidence threshold (CCT) and a collision lead time (CLT) based at least in part on a respective ego vehicle state, a respective remote vehicle state, or both, a traffic rule server (TRS), a memory, a processing system, a V2X module, wherein the TRS is a computing device and the system is a computer-implemented system. The collecting/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 traffic rule server (TRS), a memory, a processing system, 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 collecting/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, whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert based at least in part on whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver. 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; could determine, whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert based at least in part on whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver. 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 collecting event data from a vehicle to everything (V2X) module related to a generated or suppressed alert; transmit feedback data decision to enable a V2X application executed on a processor to reduce FP and FN alerts generated or suppressed by the V2X application, the feedback data indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within a geographic location to adjust a collision confidence threshold (CCT) and a collision lead time (CLT) based at least in part on a respective ego vehicle state, a respective remote vehicle state, or both, a traffic rule server (TRS), a memory, a processing system, a V2X module, wherein the TRS is a computing device and the system is a computer-implemented system. The collecting/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 traffic rule server (TRS), a memory, a processing system, 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).
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 is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the collecting/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).
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, 3-5, 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) in view of Takaki (US 20220122460 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Zhou discloses a traffic rule server (TRS) comprising: a memory (see at least [0058]); and a processing system, coupled to the memory, 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, whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert based at least in part on 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 [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).); and transmit feedback data to enable a V2X application executed on a processor to reduce FP and FN alerts generated or suppressed by the V2X application, the feedback data indicating an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within 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.”),
However, Zhou do not specifically disclose determining whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert based at least in part on whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver.
Roca teaches determining, whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert based at least in part on 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 determine, whether the generated or suppressed alert was a false positive (FP), false negative (FN), or true positive (TP) alert based at least in part on whether an alert was suppressed and a collision occurred or whether an alert was suppressed and preventive measures were taken by a driver. 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).
However, Zhou as modified by Roca do not specifically teach adjusting a collision confidence threshold (CCT) and a collision lead time (CLT) based at least in part on a respective ego vehicle state, a respective remote vehicle state, or both.
Takaki teaches adjusting a collision confidence threshold (CCT) and a collision lead time (CLT) based at least in part on a respective ego vehicle state, a respective remote vehicle state, or both (see at least [0007], [0022-0023], [0034-0035], [0038-0045], [0053-0057], and [0059-0063]).
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 Takaki of adjusting a collision confidence threshold (CCT) and a collision lead time (CLT) based at least in part on a respective ego vehicle state, a respective remote vehicle state, or both. This would be done to better inform the surrounding vehicles in order to further ensure the safety of the subject vehicle (see Takaki para 0003).
With respect to claim 3, Zhou as modified by Roca do not specifically disclose wherein the feedback data includes a suggested CCT and a suggested CLT.
Takaki teaches wherein the feedback data includes a suggested CCT and a suggested CLT (see at least [0007], [0022-0023], [0034-0035], [0038-0045], [0053-0057], and [0059-0063]).
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 Takaki of adjusting a collision confidence threshold (CCT) and a collision lead time (CLT) based at least in part on a respective ego vehicle state, a respective remote vehicle state, or both. This would be done to better inform the surrounding vehicles in order to further ensure the safety of the subject vehicle (see Takaki para 0003).
With respect to claim 4, Zhou discloses wherein the feedback data 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 processing system 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 processing system 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 claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective server claims 1, 4, 3, 5, 9, and 10. As such, claims 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective server claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 25, Zhou discloses 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 comprising: a memory; and a processing system (see at least [0058]), coupled to the memory, the processing system configured to: receive, from a traffic rule server (TRS), feedback data 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 feedback data is based on whether data related to a generated or suppressed alert collected by the TRS 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 feedback data 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 as modified by Roca do not specifically teach wherein the feedback data indicates an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location to adjust a collision confidence threshold (CCT) and a collision lead time (CLT) based at least in part on a respective ego vehicle state, a respective remote vehicle state, or both
Takaki teaches wherein the feedback data indicates an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location to adjust a collision confidence threshold (CCT) and a collision lead time (CLT) based at least in part on a respective ego vehicle state, a respective remote vehicle state, or both (see at least [0007], [0022-0023], [0034-0035], [0038-0045], [0053-0057], and [0059-0063]).
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 Takaki wherein the feedback data indicates an action to be taken by one or more vehicles within the geographic location to adjust a collision confidence threshold (CCT) and a collision lead time (CLT) based at least in part on a respective ego vehicle state, a respective remote vehicle state, or both. This would be done to better inform the surrounding vehicles in order to further ensure the safety of the subject vehicle (see Takaki para 0003).
With respect to claim 26, Zhou discloses wherein the V2X application is configured to receive the feedback data and to adjust its generation or suppression of an alert according to the feedback data (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 6, 16, 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 Takaki (US 20220122460 A1) in view of Szczepaniak et al (US 10,239,452 B1).
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 claim 16, it is a method claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claim 6. As such, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claim 6 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 30, it is a system claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claim 6. As such, claim 30 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claim 6 and is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights