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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 11/18/2025.
Claims 35, 47, 59, and 64 have been amended.
Claims 44 and 56 have been canceled.
Claims 1-34, 43, and 55 were previously canceled,
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 35-42, 45-54 and 57-64 filed on 11/18/2025 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In the Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/18/2025, Applicants asserted that:
“Based on the foregoing, Applicant's respectfully assert that Kwak fails to disclose a directional transmission. Furthermore, Kwak further fails to disclose the additional details of determining a direction of transmission for a directional transmission for the message to the one or more third devices as well as sending the message comprising information about the first object in the directional transmission in the determined direction of transmission. Specifically, Kwak provides no disclosure of determining of a direction of transmission. Because Kwak and Hwang fail to disclose these details, and because one of skill in the art would understand Kwak to disclose using distance, not direction, for transmission of object information, it appears that the Official Action is using impermissible hindsight reasoning and using Applicant's invention as a roadmap for the rejection of the pending claims.." (Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/18/2025, page 13)
The examiner respectfully disagree.
First, amended claim 35 is indefinite. Claim 35 recites, in relevant part:
…
selecting information about the first object to report in a message to one or more third devices based on whether the first object corresponds to at least one object of the one or more second objects in the one or more messages and whether a portion of a relative coverage area of the first device does not overlap with a relative coverage area of the one or more second devices;
determining a direction of transmission for a directional transmission for the message to the one or more third devices; and
transmitting, by the first device, the message to the one or more third devices, wherein the first device sends the message comprising information about the first object in the directional transmission in the direction of transmission to a region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices in response to determining that the first object corresponds to at least one of the one or more second objects.
The limitations “whether a portion of a relative coverage area of the first device does not overlap with a relative coverage area of the one or more second devices,” “determining a direction of transmission for a directional transmission for the message to the one or more third devices,” and “wherein the first device sends the message comprising information about the first object in the directional transmission in the direction of transmission to a region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices” are indefinite.
The claim does not recite that the first device has knowledge of the position, location, orientation, or any spatial information regarding (i) the one or more third devices or (ii) the “region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices.”
Absent such information, it is unclear how the first device can determine a “direction of transmission” for transmitting the message to the one or more third devices. Specifically, the claim fails to specify:
whether the direction of transmission is determined based on the locations of the one or more third devices,
whether the direction is determined based on the identified non-overlapping region,
how the boundaries of the “region not overlapping” are defined or calculated,
how the first device identifies the spatial relationship between its transmission direction and the coverage areas of the second devices, or
whether the directional transmission is intended to reach the third devices, the non-overlapping region, or both.
Because the claim does not explain how the transmission direction is determined without knowledge of the relevant spatial positions, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention. The relationship between (1) the third devices, (2) the region not overlapping, and (3) the determined transmission direction is, therefore, ambiguous. Thus, Examiner will apply broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) for this limitation for the purpose of the prior art rejection.
Second, Kwak discloses the directional transmission.
Specifically, Kwak discloses that, in para [0148] of Kwak, since analog beamforming is used in mmWave, the vehicle needs to perform beam sweeping (interpreted as “directional transmission”) that performs beam switching in different directions at different time points using an antenna array of the vehicle in the beam acquisition or beam tracking process. Thus, the CPM of the first ITS station (A) illustrated in Fig. 14(b) is directional transmission.
Third, Kwak discloses the determining a direction of transmission for a directional transmission for the message to the one or more third devices;” and “transmitting, by the first device, the message to the one or more third devices, wherein the first device sends the message comprising information about the first object in the directional transmission in the direction of transmission to a region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices in response to determining that the first object corresponds to at least one of the one or more second objects.”
Kwak discloses that:
Para [0194] of Kwak: A Collective Perception Service (CPS) is a service for transmitting, to adjacent ITS station(s), the CPM that is configured based on the object information sensed by sensors of the ITS station (or ITS-station) equipped with the sensors.
Para [0195] of Kwak: Referring to FIG. 12, when each of a vehicle B1 (or a second ITS station) and a vehicle A (or a first ITS station) can transmit the CPM (and/or CAM), the third ITS station (or Vehicle B2) can be sensed by sensors of the second ITS station B1 and sensors of the first ITS station A.
Para [0204] of Kwak: Referring to FIG. 13, as a method for comparing the positions of objects with each other, the first ITS station (A) may estimate the positions of such objects located at the same time point in consideration of a time difference between timestamp information of the reception CAM and the sensing time point, and may thus compare and determine the positions of objects using dynamics and kinetic information of the reception CAM.
Para [0210] of Kwak: In other words, when the distance between the first ITS station (A) and the object (B) is equal to or longer than a threshold distance , transmission of the CPM including information of the object (B) may be advantages in terms of coverage extension (or coverage extension of the CAM of the object B) of transmission of information about the object (B) rather than duplication transmission of information about the object (B).
Para [0212] of Kwak: FIG. 14(b) illustrates an exemplary situation (second situation) in which the distance between the first object (B1) and the first ITS station is equal to or longer than a threshold distance and the CPM of the first object (B1) is not received by the third object (B3) (interpreted as “does not overlap with a relative coverage area of the one or more second devices”).
Para [0214] of Kwak: the third object may obtain information about the first object (B1) through the CPM of the first ITS station (A). In this case, through the CPM, the CAM coverage of the first object can increase.
Para [0266] of Kwak: the third object may obtain information about the first object (B1) through the CPM of the first ITS station (A). In this case, through the CPM, the CAM coverage of the first object can increase.
As shown in Figure 14 (b) of Kwak, the CPM of the first ITS station (A) is transmitted directionally toward an area in the movement direction of the first ITS station (A) that does not overlap with the transmission area of the first object (B1: interpreted as “one or more second devices”) because the first ITS station (A) has knowledge of the positions of such objects located at the same time point (see paragraphs [0195 and 0204] of Kwak). Thus, the CPM coverage of the first object (B1: interpreted as “one or more second devices”) can increase and CPM of the B1 can be transmitted to the third object (B3). See the vehicle(A)'s beamforming direction in Fig. 14(b).
Fig. 14(b) of Kwak is reproduced herein below.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 14 (b) of Kwak, annotated)
Kwak, therefore, teaches the determining a direction of transmission for a directional transmission for the message to the one or more third devices (para [0148] of Kwak: since analog beamforming is used in mmWave, the vehicle needs to perform beam sweeping (interpreted as “directional transmission”) that performs beam switching in different directions at different time points using an antenna array of the vehicle in the beam acquisition or beam tracking process.) (para [0210] of Kwak: when the distance between the first ITS station (A) and the object (B) is equal to or longer than a threshold distance, transmission of the CPM including information of the object (B) may be advantages in terms of coverage extension (or coverage extension of the CAM of the object B) of transmission of information about the object (B) rather than duplication transmission of information about the object (B).) (FIG. 14(b) and Para [0212] of Kwak: FIG. 14(b) illustrates an exemplary situation (second situation) in which the distance between the first object (B1) and the first ITS station is equal to or longer than a threshold distance and the CPM of the first object (B1) is not received by the third object (B3) (“B3” is interpreted as “one or more third devices” )) (para [0266]: if the distance to the second device is equal to or longer than (exceeds) the threshold distance, the first device may configure the CPM in a manner that information about the overlapping object is included in the CPM (interpreted as “determining a direction of transmission for a directional transmission for the message to the one or more third devices” ). For example, the first device may configure the CPM that includes both object information (further including information about the overlapping object) included in the sensing information and information about the first device.); and the transmitting, by the first device, the message (“CPM of A”) to the one or more third devices (“B3”), wherein the first device sends the message comprising information about the first object in the directional transmission in the direction of transmission to a region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices (“B1” or “B2”, see Fig. 14(b) of Kwak) (Fig. 14(b) of Kwak shows a directional transmission to object B3) in response to determining that the first object corresponds to at least one of the one or more second objects (“paragraphs [0212] and [0266] of Kwak)”.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (European Patent Application Publication No. EP 3 462 754 A 1, hereinafter "Hwang") in view of Kwak (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0264265, hereinafter "Kwak") is proper and thus, maintained.
Fourth, in the Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/18/2025, Applicants further asserted that “Hwang in view of Kwak fails to teach, suggest or disclose "wherein the selecting the information about the first object to report comprises selecting a subset of information about the first object based on the subset of the information not being present in the one or more messages from the one or more second devices", as required by claim 42. The Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 42 and 54 filed on 11/18/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after updating the search, a new portion of Kwak has been cited.
For example, Kwak teaches the wherein the selecting the information about the first object to report comprises selecting a subset of information about the first object based on the subset of the information not being present in the one or more messages from the one or more second devices (para [0028] of Kwak: … determine whether object information overlapping first object information obtained from the first message is included in the sensing information, determine whether to include the overlapping object information in the CPM based on a distance to the second device (interpreted as “based on the subset of the information not being present in the one or more messages from the one or more second devices”) , and transmit the CPM based on the sensing information by controlling the RF transceiver.) (para [0024] of Kwak: The overlapping object information may be determined not only based on type, size, position, and mobility information of the object or the second device, that are obtained from the first message, but also based on type, size, position, and mobility information of the object, that are obtained from the sensing information (interpreted as “based on the subset of the information not being present in the one or more messages from the one or more second devices”).).
The applicant also presented other arguments drawn to the various dependent claims. However, said other arguments are all dependency based, depending from the arguments drawn to the independent claims’ limitations discussed above.
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 35, 47, 59, and 64 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention..
Claims 35, 47, 59, and 64 recite “a portion of a relative coverage area of the first device does not overlap with a relative coverage area of the one or more second devices”. The term “relative coverage area” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what type of “coverage” is being referenced (sensor detection coverage, communication transmission coverage, geographical area, logical network are, etc.). Furthermore, the term “relative” lacks an antecedent bases or reference frame (relative to what?). Because of these ambiguities, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed “non-overlapping” determination.
Claims 35, 47, 59, and 64 recite “selecting information about the first object to report in a message to one or more third devices based on whether the first object corresponds to at least one object of the one or more second objects in the one or more messages and whether a portion of a relative coverage area of the first device does not overlap with a relative coverage area of the one or more second devices;” “determining a direction of transmission for a directional transmission for the message to the one or more third devices;” and “wherein the first device sends the message comprising information about the first object in the directional transmission in the direction of transmission to a region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices.” The limitations “determining a direction of transmission for a directional transmission for the message to the one or more third devices” and “wherein the first device sends the message comprising information about the first object in the directional transmission in the direction of transmission to a region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices” are indefinite.
The claim does not recite that the first device has knowledge of the position, location, orientation, or any spatial information regarding (i) the one or more third devices or (ii) the “region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices.” Absent such information, it is unclear how the first device can determine a “direction of transmission” for transmitting the message to the one or more third devices. Specifically, the claim fails to specify:
whether the direction of transmission is determined based on the locations of the one or more third devices,
whether the direction is determined based on the identified non-overlapping region,
how the boundaries of the “region not overlapping” are defined or calculated,
how the first device identifies the spatial relationship between its transmission direction and the coverage areas of the second devices, or
whether the directional transmission is intended to reach the third devices, the non-overlapping region, or both.
Because the claim does not explain how the transmission direction is determined without knowledge of the relevant spatial positions , one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention. Thus, the relationship between (1) the third devices, (2) the region not overlapping, and (3) the determined transmission direction is ambiguous.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are therefore not defined with reasonable certainty, and claims 35, 47, 59, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) as indefinite.
Claims 36-42, 45-46, 48-54, 57-58, and 60-64 depend from one of the independent claims, thus carry the same issues as described above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 35-42, 45-54, and 57-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (European Patent Application Publication No. EP 3 462 754 A1, hereinafter “Hwang”) in view of Kwak (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0264265, hereinafter “Kwak”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Hwang unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independent claims 35, 47, 59 and 64:
Regarding claim 35, Hwang teaches A method comprising:
detecting, by a first device (Fig. 15A, V2) , a first object (Fig. 15B, object #V1 and #V3) using one or more sensors (para [0122]; each vehicle includes at least one sensor, and may detect surrounding objects (interpreted as “first object”) using the at least one sensor.);
receiving, by the first device, one or more messages (Fig. 15(a)(b), first CPM) from one or more second devices indicating detection of one or more second objects (para [0153]; Referring to t1 of FIG. 15A, the first vehicle V2X communication device (V1 in FIG. 15A, V1 is interpreted as “one or more second devices”) may transmit or broadcast the first CPM, … the second vehicle V2X communication device (V2 in FIG. 15A, V2 is interpreted as “first device”) may receive the first CPM.), the one or more messages (first CPM) indicating information about the one or more second objects (Fig. 15B, Objects #V2 and #V3 in first CPM);
selecting information about the first object to report in a message (FIG. 15A and 15B, second CPM) to one or more third devices (Fig. 15A, V3) based on whether the first object corresponds to at least one object of the one or more second objects in the one or more messages (Para [0244] ; When it is determined that the object related to the external V2X communication device is the same object as one of the at least one first detection object, the CP message may include second object information different from the first object information. In an embodiment, the second object information may be information included in the above-mentioned SPOC.)(Examiner’s note: the object #V3 detected by the V2 is corresponds to one (#V3) of the objects #V1 and V3 in the first CPM, see Fig. 15B) and
transmitting, by the first device, the message to the one or more third devices, wherein the first device sends the message comprising information about the first object (Para [0155] ; Referring to t2 of FIG. 15A, the second vehicle V2X communication device may transmit or broadcast the second CPM,)(Examiner’s note: the object #V1 and #V3 is included in the second CPM of V2, see FIG. 15B) in response to determining that the first object corresponds to at least one of the one or more second objects (Para [0244] ; When it is determined that (interpreted as “in response to determining …”) the object related to the external V2X communication device is the same object as one of the at least one first detection object, the CP message may include second object information different from the first object information.).
Hwang does not explicitly teaches the above strike features “whether a portion of a relative coverage area of the first device does not overlap with a relative coverage area of the one or more second devices,” “determining a direction of transmission for a directional transmission for the message to the one or more third devices” and “transmitting … in a directional transmission to a region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices”
In analogous art, Kwak teaches:
whether a portion of a relative coverage area of the first device does not overlap with a relative coverage area of the one or more second devices (Para [0266] ; if the distance to the second device is equal to or longer than (exceeds) the threshold distance (interpreted as “a portion of a relative coverage area of the first device does not overlap with a relative coverage area …”), the first device may configure the CPM in a manner that information about the overlapping object is included in the CPM.)
determining a direction of transmission for a directional transmission for the message to the one or more third devices (para [0148] of Kwak: since analog beamforming is used in mmWave, the vehicle needs to perform beam sweeping (interpreted as “directional transmission”) that performs beam switching in different directions at different time points using an antenna array of the vehicle in the beam acquisition or beam tracking process.) (para [0210] of Kwak: when the distance between the first ITS station (A) and the object (B) is equal to or longer than a threshold distance, transmission of the CPM including information of the object (B) may be advantages in terms of coverage extension (or coverage extension of the CAM of the object B) of transmission of information about the object (B) rather than duplication transmission of information about the object (B).) (FIG. 14(b) and Para [0212] of Kwak: FIG. 14(b) illustrates an exemplary situation (second situation) in which the distance between the first object (B1) and the first ITS station is equal to or longer than a threshold distance and the CPM of the first object (B1) is not received by the third object (B3) (“B3” is interpreted as “one or more third devices” )) (para [0266]: if the distance to the second device is equal to or longer than (exceeds) the threshold distance, the first device may configure the CPM in a manner that information about the overlapping object is included in the CPM (interpreted as “determining a direction of transmission for a directional transmission for the message to the one or more third devices” ). For example, the first device may configure the CPM that includes both object information (further including information about the overlapping object) included in the sensing information and information about the first device.)
transmitting … in a directional transmission to a region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices (Para [0212] ; FIG. 14(b) illustrates an exemplary situation (second situation) in which the distance between the first object (B1) and the first ITS station is equal to or longer than a threshold distance and the CPM of the first object (B1) is not received by the third object (B3)).
As shown in Figure 14 (b) of Kwak, the CPM of the first ITS station (A) is transmitted directionally toward an area in the movement direction of the first ITS station (A) that does not overlap with the transmission area of the first object (B1: interpreted as “one or more second devices”) because the first ITS station (A) has knowledge of the positions of such objects located at the same time point (see paragraphs [0195 and 0204] of Kwak). Thus, the CPM coverage of the first object (B1: interpreted as “one or more second devices”) can increase and CPM of the B1 can be transmitted to the third object (B3). See the vehicle(A)'s beamforming direction in Fig. 14(b).
Fig. 14(b) of Kwak is reproduced herein below.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 14 (b) of Kwak, annotated)
Kwak further discloses that, in para [0214] of Kwak, “the third object may obtain information about the first object (B1) through the CPM of the first ITS station (A) (interpreted as “transmitting … in a directional transmission (see Fig. 14(b) of Kwak; directional transmission to object B3) to a region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices”). In this case, through the CPM, the CAM coverage of the first object can increase.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Hwang's method by using the features of Kwak in order to have more effective method such that the method of Hwang selects information about the overlapping object to report in a message to a third device and transmits the message in a directional transmission to a region not overlapping with the relative coverage area of the one or more second devices in response to determining that the first object corresponds to at least one of the one or more second objects whether a portion of a relative coverage area of the first device does not overlap with a relative coverage area of the one or more second devices in response to determining that the first object corresponds to at least one of the one or more second objects. The above modified method can allow the message to include information about the overlapping object, resulting in an increased coverage of the received message related to the overlapping object (see para [0015] of Kwak).
Regarding claim 47, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 35, except limitations “one or more processors (Fig. 27, processor S27020); memory (Fig. 27, memory S27030) in electronic communication with the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 35.
Regarding claim 59, Claim 59 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 35, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 35.
Regarding claim 64, Claim 64 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 47, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 47.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim 36, Hwang and Kwak teach The method of claim 35, further comprising determining one or more attributes of the first object (para [0064]; the CPM may include state and attribute information of road users and objects detected by the originating V2X communication device.)(para [0070]; the CPM may include an OVC as a mandatory container, and may optionally include an FVC and a Perceived (or detected) Object Container (POC).)(see attribute information on the object in Tables 1, 2, and 3).
Claim 48, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 36, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 36.
Claim 60, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 36, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 36.
Regarding claim 37, Hwang and Kwak teach The method of claim 36, wherein the one or more attributes of the first object comprises one or more of: Hwang teaches
a distance from the first object to the first device or the one or more sensors; a dimension of the first object; a relative direction of the first object with respect to the first device or the one or more sensors; or a viewpoint of the first device with respect to the first object (paragraphs [0070-0092]; the CPM may include … a Perceived (or detected) Object Container (POC).)(see attribute information in Table 3)(see Table 3 in para [0090]; Distance Values-Relative distances to object).
Claim 49, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 37, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 37.
Claim 61, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 37, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 37.
Regarding claim 38, Hwang and Kwak teach The method of claim 35, wherein the information about the one or more second objects comprise one or more of: Hwang teaches
a location; a classification; a classification quality; a distance from the one or more second object to the one or more second devices; a dimension of the one or more second objects; a relative direction of the one or more second object with respect to the one or more second devices; or a viewpoint of the one or more second devices with respect to the one or more second objects (para [0090]; Quality Class: This indicates classification of the sensors that define the quality of the measured objects. Table 3 shows an exemplary POC in the CPM. See Table 3) (see Table 3; Distance Values-Relative distances to object, Dimension(length, Width) of object, Classification of object).
Claim 50, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 38, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 38.
Claim 62, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 38, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 38.
Regarding claim 39, Hwang and Kwak teach The method of claim 35, wherein selecting the information about the first object to report in the message (Fig. 15(a)(b), second CPM) to the one or more third devices (Fig. 15(a), V3) further comprises
Hwang teaches selecting based on the information about the one or more second objects (Para [0244] ; When it is determined that the object related to the external V2X communication device is the same object as one of the at least one first detection object, the CP message may include second object information different from the first object information, and the second object information includes the ID information of the external V2X communication device.).
Claim 51, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 39, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 39.
Claim 63, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 39, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 39.
Regarding claim 40, Hwang and Kwak teach The method of claim 35, Hwang teaches wherein the one or more messages indicate information about the one or more second devices (Fig. 15(a), V1), wherein the information about the one or more second devices comprises one or more of: a location of the one or more second devices; a viewpoint of the one or more second devices with respect to the one or more second objects; or a relative location of the one or more second devices with respect to the one or more second objects (para [0070]; The plurality of containers may include an Originating Vehicle Container (OVC), … Table 1 (interpreted as “the information about the one or more second devices”) shows an exemplary OVC in the CPM.)(see Table 1 in para [0070]; Reference Position, Heading, Longitudinal Speed, Lateral Speed, Vehicle Length, Vehicle Width) (see Table 3 in para [0090]; Distance Values-Relative distances to object).
Claim 52, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 40, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 40.
Regarding claim 41, Hwang and Kwak teach The method of claim 35, Hwang teaches wherein the one or more messages from the one or more second devices comprise a basic safety message (paragraphs [0031-0033]; FIG. 2 is a view illustrating a method of processing a V2X message … In the embodiment of FIG. 2, the data may include a message set, and the message set may become a basic safety message.)
Claim 53, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 41, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 41.
Regarding claim 42, Hwang and Kwak teach The method of claim 35, Kwak teaches wherein the selecting the information about the first object to report comprises selecting a subset of information about the first object based on the subset of the information not being present in the one or more messages from the one or more second devices (para [0028] of Kwak: … determine whether object information overlapping first object information obtained from the first message is included in the sensing information, determine whether to include the overlapping object information in the CPM based on a distance to the second device (interpreted as “based on the subset of the information not being present in the one or more messages from the one or more second devices”) , and transmit the CPM based on the sensing information by controlling the RF transceiver.) (para [0024] of Kwak: The overlapping object information may be determined not only based on type, size, position, and mobility information of the object or the second device, that are obtained from the first message, but also based on type, size, position, and mobility information of the object, that are obtained from the sensing information (interpreted as “based on the subset of the information not being present in the one or more messages from the one or more second devices”).)..
Claim 54, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 42, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 42.
Regarding claim 45, Hwang and Kwak teach The method of claim 35, further comprising Hwang teaches determining whether the first object corresponds to the at least one object of the one or more second objects, wherein the selecting information about the first object to report comprises selecting based on the determining whether the first object corresponds to the at least one object of the one or more second objects (para [0242]; When it is determined that the object related to the external V2X communication device is not the same object as at least one first detection object, the CP message may include first object information providing a description of the first detection object.).
Claim 57, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 45, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 45.
Regarding claim 46, Hwang and Kwak teach The method of claim 35, further comprising Hwang teaches determining a quality of a classification of the first object, based on one or more of: a sensor type of the one or more sensors used to detect or classify the first object; an accuracy of a sensor of the one or more sensors; an aggregate sensor accuracy based on detection by two or more sensors of the one or more sensors; a distance to the first object from the first device or the one or more sensors; or a viewpoint of the first device or the one or more sensors to the first object (para [0070]; the CPM may include … FVC (“Field-of-View Container”)) (para [0082]; Table 2 shows an exemplary FVC in the CPM. See Table 2)(para [0082]; Quality Class: This indicates Classification of sensor defining the quality of measured objects. See Table 2; Sensor ID, Sensor Type, Sensor Position, Angles., etc.).
Claim 58, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 46, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 46.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411