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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 40, 42-49, 51, 54-59, and 61-67 are currently pending.
2. Claims 65-67 are new.
3. Claims 1-39, 41, 50, 52-53, and 60 are canceled.
4. Claims 40, 51, 56, 59, and 63 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 40, 42-49, 51, 54-57, 59, and 61-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US 20140163858 A1), in view of Giorgio (US 20210131823 A1), in view of Hoon (KR 20170047143 A; already of record), and in further view of Robbel (US 20210197805 A1).
9. Regarding Claim 40, Richardson teaches an originating Intelligent Transport System Station (ITS-S), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor to execute instructions to (Richardson: [0087] and [0091]):
Collect and process sensor data from an environment (Richardson: [0086] and [0087]);
Generate a dynamic contextual road occupancy map (DCROM) based on the collected and processed sensor data (Richardson: [0033], [0050], and [0091]),
Wherein the… DCROM provides an occupancy map with a plurality of cells… (Richardson: [0036] and [0095]),
Wherein a respective cell of the plurality of cells includes an occupancy value... wherein the occupancy value defines a probability that the respective cell is occupied by an object… (Richardson: [0056], [0058], and [0059]);
And construct a vulnerable road user Awareness Message (VAM) including one or more data fields (DFs) for sharing DCROM information (Richardson: [0108]).
Richardson fails to explicitly teach wherein the DCROM is a layered costmap including a base costmap and a plurality of layers, wherein each layer of the plurality of layers is generated from a different source or type of sensor that tracks objects in the environment, wherein the base costmap of the DCROM provides an occupancy map with a plurality of cells that combines data from the plurality of layers, wherein a respective cell of the plurality of cells includes... a corresponding confidence value... wherein the corresponding confidence value defines a statistical confidence of the occupancy value for the respective cell at a corresponding time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Giorgio teaches wherein the DCROM is a layered costmap including a base costmap and a plurality of layers, wherein each layer of the plurality of layers is generated from a different source or type of sensor that tracks objects in the environment (Giorgio: [0052]-[0055] and [0056]),
Wherein the base costmap of the DCROM provides an occupancy map with a plurality of cells that combines data from the plurality of layers (Giorgio: [0112] and [0123]),
And wherein a respective cell of the plurality of cells includes an occupancy value and a corresponding confidence value... wherein the corresponding confidence value defines a statistical confidence of the occupancy value for the respective cell at a corresponding time (Giorgio: [0123] and [0198] Note that a cell including an occupancy value and corresponding confidence value, wherein the confidence value defines a statistical confidence of the occupancy value is equivalent to determining a set of sensor occupancy grid maps and assigning a weight for each grid map based on the confidence of the sensor reading.).
Richardson and Giorgio are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle occupancy maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson to incorporate the teachings of Giorgio to determine a layered costmap including a base costmap and plurality of layers generated from difference sources and combine the data from the plurality of layers because it provides the benefit of improving consistency of occupancy cost maps by increasing resolution of mapping and as a result, increases the safety of the passengers of the vehicle.
Richardson and Giorgio fail to explicitly teach to cause transmission or broadcast of the VAM to a set of ITS-Ss including one or more vulnerable road users (VRUs).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hoon teaches to cause transmission or broadcast of the VAM to a set of ITS-Ss including one or more vulnerable road users (VRUs) (Hoon: [0024], [0025], and [0027]).
Richardson, Giorgio, and Hoon are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson and Giorgio to incorporate the teachings of Hoon to broadcast the vulnerable road user awareness message to a set of ITSs including vulnerable road users because it provides the benefit of increasing awareness between vehicles and pedestrians to avoid a collision. Broadcasting a warning message between units based on the determining collision possibility.
Richardson, Giorgio, and Hoon fail to explicitly teach to perform a collision risk analysis (CRA) based on the occupancy value and the corresponding confidence value of respective cells in the DCROM; select a collision avoidance strategy based on the CRA; and cause transmission or broadcast of a second VAM, the second VAM to trigger execution of a collision risk avoidance action at one of more of the VRUs based on the collision avoidance strategy, wherein the second VAM includes a Trajectory Interception Indicator (TII) and a Maneuver Identifier (MI), wherein the TII reflects how likely a trajectory of the originating ITS-S is going to be intercepted by one or more neighboring ITS-Ss and the MI indicates a type of maneuvering needed of the collision risk avoidance action.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Robbel teaches to perform a collision risk analysis (CRA) based on the occupancy value and the corresponding confidence value of respective cells in the DCROM (Robbel: [0124], [0125], and [0140]);
Select a collision avoidance strategy based on the CRA; and cause transmission or broadcast of a second VAM, the second VAM to trigger execution of a collision risk avoidance action at one of more of the VRUs based on the collision avoidance strategy (Robbel: [0125], [0128], and [0143]),
Wherein the second VAM includes a Trajectory Interception Indicator (TII) and a Maneuver Identifier (MI), wherein the TII reflects how likely a trajectory of the originating ITS-S is going to be intercepted by one or more neighboring ITS-Ss and the MI indicates a type of maneuvering needed of the collision risk avoidance action (Robbel: [0125], [0128], and [0130]).
Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson, Giorgio, and Hoon to incorporate the teachings of Robbel to perform a collision risk analysis based on occupancy values of cells in the DCROM to select a collision avoidance strategy and transmit a second VAM to trigger execution of a collision risk avoidance action because it provides the benefit of controlling the vehicle based on the objects in the vehicle surroundings to avoid collisions. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings.
10. Regarding Claim 42, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 40, and further, Richardson teaches the DCROM information included in the one or more DFs of the VAM includes one or more of: a reference point indicating a location of the originating ITS-S in an area covered by the DCROM; a grid size indicating dimensions of a grid provided by the DCROM; a cell size indicating dimensions of each cell of the plurality of cells; a starting position indicating a starting cell of the grid, wherein other cells of the plurality of cells are to be labelled based on their relation to from the starting cell; occupancy values including a respective occupancy value of each cell in the grid… (Richardson: [0045] and [0052] Note that the DCROM information includes the cell size indicating dimension of each cell because the size is selected to not be too large or too small.).
Richardson fails to explicitly teach confidence values corresponding to the occupancy value of each cell in the grid.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Giorgio teaches confidence values corresponding to the occupancy value of each cell in the grid (Giorgio: [0123] and [0198]).
Richardson and Giorgio are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle occupancy maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson to incorporate the teachings of Giorgio to include a corresponding confidence value that defines a statistical confidence of the occupancy value for the cells because it provides the benefit of making improved decisions for avoiding collisions with objects.
11. Regarding Claim 43, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 40, and further, Richardson teaches the VAM is a first VAM, wherein the first VAM includes an occupancy status indicator (OSI) data field (DF) including a first OSI value and a grid location indicator (GLI) field including a first GLI value, and the at least one processor is to execute the instructions to (Richardson: [0044], [0052], and [0058]):
And update the DCROM based on the second OSI and GLI values or the third OSI and GLI values (Richardson: [0060] Note that the DRCOM is continually updated with new values based on the successive observations.).
Richardson fails to explicitly teach to receive a second received VAM from at least a first ITS-S of the set of ITS-Ss, wherein the first ITS-S is a VRU ITS-S, and the second received VAM includes an OSI field including a second OSI value and a GLI field includes a second GLI value; receive a third received VAM or a Decentralized Environmental Notification Message (DENM) from at least a second ITS-S of the set of ITS-Ss, the second ITS-S being a VRU ITS-S or a non-VRU ITS-S, and the third received VAM or the DENM includes an OSI field including a third OSI value and a GLI field including a third GLI value; and update the DCROM based on the second OSI and GLI values or the third OSI and GLI values.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hoon teaches to receive a second received VAM from at least a first ITS-S of the set of ITS-Ss, wherein the first ITS-S is a VRU ITS-S, and the second received VAM includes an OSI field including a second OSI value and a GLI field includes a second GLI value; receive a third received VAM or a Decentralized Environmental Notification Message (DENM) from at least a second ITS-S of the set of ITS-Ss, the second ITS-S being a VRU ITS-S or a non-VRU ITS-S, and the third received VAM or the DENM includes an OSI field including a third OSI value and a GLI field including a third GLI value; and update the DCROM based on the second OSI and GLI values or the third OSI and GLI values (Hoon: [0024], [0025], and [0027] Note that the RSUs exchange the information with each other to predict the possibility of a collision between the pedestrian terminal and vehicle terminal.).
Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson, Giorgio, and Robbel to incorporate the teachings of Hoon to receive a second and third VAM because it provides the benefit of receiving additional messages to update a map. This provides the additional benefit of increasing awareness between vehicles and pedestrians to avoid a collision.
12. Regarding Claim 44, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 43, and further, Richardson teaches the first GLI value indicates cells around a first reference cell of the plurality of cells, wherein the first reference cell is a cell in the DCROM occupied by the originating ITS-S, the second GLI value indicates relative cells around a second reference cell, wherein the second reference cell is a cell in the D CROM occupied by the first ITS-S, and the third GLI value indicates relative cells around a third reference cell, wherein the third reference cell is a cell in the DCROM occupied by the second ITS-S (Richardson: [0061] and [0062] Note that Figure 2D includes a plurality of pins. Therefore, the pins include a first, second, and third GLI value around a reference cell occupied by an ITS-S.).
13. Regarding Claim 45, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 44, and further, Richardson teaches the first OSI value is a probabilistic indicator indicating an estimated uncertainty of neighboring cells around the originating ITS-S, the second OSI value is a probabilistic indicator indicating an estimated uncertainty of neighboring cells around the first ITS-S, and the third OSI value is a probabilistic indicator indicating an estimated uncertainty of neighboring cells around the second ITS-S (Richardson: [0056], [0058], [0059], and [0060] Note that the POM includes a plurality of cells and a OSI value indicates uncertainty of a plurality of neighboring cells. Also, note that a 100% chance indicates that there is no uncertainty for the cell at the current time.).
14. Regarding Claim 46, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 43, and further, Richardson teaches the originating ITS-S is a VRU ITS-S with sensors and perception capabilities (Richardson: [0090], [0091], and [0093] Note that the object detection system is equivalent to the originating ITS-S with sensors and perception capabilities. Also, note that perception capabilities are broadly interpreted as the ability to see. Therefore, the camera sensors 118 have perception capabilities.).
Richardson fails to explicitly teach the first ITS-S is a VRU ITS-S without sensors and perception capabilities, and the second ITS-S is a VRU ITS-S with sensors and perception capabilities, a vehicle ITS-S, or a roadside ITS-S.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hoon teaches the first ITS-S is a VRU ITS-S without sensors and perception capabilities, and the second ITS-S is a VRU ITS-S with sensors and perception capabilities, a vehicle ITS-S, or a roadside ITS-S (Hoon: [0024], [0025], and [0027] Note that the roadside machines 150A and 150B do not include sensors because they receive their data via communication. Also, note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second ITS_S is equivalent to a roadside ITS-S.).
Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson, Giorgio, and Robbel to incorporate the teachings of Hoon to include a first ITS-S without sensor and perception capabilities and a roadside ITS-S because it provides the benefit of communicating between vehicles on the roadway and a traffic control center. It is desirable to receive information from a close range to avoid a communication delay in receiving information collected from the vehicles in the environment. This provides the additional benefit of collision avoidance and increased safety of pedestrians and vehicles.
15. Regarding Claim 47, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 40, and further, Richardson teaches the collected sensor data includes sensor data collected from sensors of the originating ITS-S (Richardson: [0086] and [0090]).
16. Regarding Claim 48, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 40, and further, Richardson teaches the sensor data includes one or more of an ego VRU identifier (ID), position data, profile data, speed data, direction data, orientation data, trajectory data, velocity data, and/or other sensor data (Richardson: [0052] and [0086]).
17. Regarding Claim 49, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 40, and further, Robbel teaches wherein the CRA includes performance of trajectory interception probability (TIP) computations or performance of a time to collision (TTC) computation (Robbel: [0124]).
18. Regarding Claim 51, Richardson teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media (NTCRM) comprising instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by one or more processors of an ego intelligent transport system station (ITS-S) is to cause the ego ITS-S to (Richardson: [0087] and [0091]):
Obtain sensor data of an environment from one or more sensors of the ego ITS-S (Richardson: [0086] and [0087]);
Generate or update a dynamic contextual road occupancy map (DCROM) based on the obtained sensor data (Richardson: [0033], [0050], and [0091]),
Wherein the… DCROM provides an occupancy map with a plurality of cells… (Richardson: [0036] and [0095]),
Wherein a respective cell of the plurality of cells includes an occupancy value... wherein the occupancy value defines a probability that the respective cell is occupied by an object… (Richardson: [0056], [0058], and [0059]);
And generate a vulnerable road user awareness message (VAM) including a set of data fields (DFs), wherein a subset of DFs among the set of DFs includes DCROM information of the generated DCROM (Richardson: [0108]).
Richardson fails to explicitly teach wherein the DCROM is a layered costmap including a base costmap and a plurality of layers, wherein each layer of the plurality of layers is generated from a different source or type of sensor that tracks objects in the environment, wherein the base costmap of the DCROM provides an occupancy map with a plurality of cells that combines data from the plurality of layers, wherein a respective cell of the plurality of cells includes... a corresponding confidence value... wherein the corresponding confidence value defines a statistical confidence of the occupancy value for the respective cell at a corresponding time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Giorgio teaches wherein the DCROM is a layered costmap including a base costmap and a plurality of layers, wherein each layer of the plurality of layers is generated from a different source or type of sensor that tracks objects in the environment (Giorgio: [0052]-[0055] and [0056]),
Wherein the base costmap of the DCROM provides an occupancy map with a plurality of cells that combines data from the plurality of layers (Giorgio: [0112] and [0123]),
And wherein a respective cell of the plurality of cells includes an occupancy value and a corresponding confidence value... wherein the corresponding confidence value defines a statistical confidence of the occupancy value for the respective cell at a corresponding time (Giorgio: [0123] and [0198] Note that a cell including an occupancy value and corresponding confidence value, wherein the confidence value defines a statistical confidence of the occupancy value is equivalent to determining a set of sensor occupancy grid maps and assigning a weight for each grid map based on the confidence of the sensor reading.).
Richardson and Giorgio are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle occupancy maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson to incorporate the teachings of Giorgio to determine a layered costmap including a base costmap and plurality of layers generated from difference sources and combine the data from the plurality of layers because it provides the benefit of improving consistency of occupancy cost maps by increasing resolution of mapping and as a result, increases the safety of the passengers of the vehicle.
Richardson and Giorgio fail to explicitly teach to cause transmission or broadcast of the VAM to a set of ITS-Ss, wherein the set of ITS-Ss includes at least one vulnerable road user (VRU) ITS-S.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hoon teaches to cause transmission or broadcast of the VAM to a set of ITS-Ss, wherein the set of ITS-Ss includes at least one vulnerable road user (VRU) ITS-S (Hoon: [0024], [0025], and [0027]).
Richardson, Giorgio, and Hoon are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson and Giorgio to incorporate the teachings of Hoon to broadcast the vulnerable road user awareness message to a set of ITSs including vulnerable road users because it provides the benefit of increasing awareness between vehicles and pedestrians to avoid a collision. Broadcasting a warning message between units based on the determining collision possibility.
Richardson, Giorgio, and Hoon fail to explicitly teach to perform a collision risk analysis (CRA) based on the occupancy value and the corresponding confidence value of respective cells in the DCROM; select a collision avoidance strategy based on the CRA; and cause transmission or broadcast of a second VAM, the second VAM to trigger execution of a collision risk avoidance action at one of more of the VRUs based on the collision avoidance strategy, wherein the second VAM includes a Trajectory Interception Indicator (TII) and a Maneuver Identifier (MI), wherein the TII reflects how likely a trajectory of the originating ITS-S is going to be intercepted by one or more neighboring ITS-Ss and the MI indicates a type of maneuvering needed of the collision risk avoidance action.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Robbel teaches to perform a collision risk analysis (CRA) based on the occupancy value and the corresponding confidence value of respective cells in the DCROM (Robbel: [0124], [0125], and [0140]);
Select a collision avoidance strategy based on the CRA; and cause transmission or broadcast of a second VAM, the second VAM to trigger execution of a collision risk avoidance action at one of more of the VRUs based on the collision avoidance strategy (Robbel: [0125], [0128], and [0143]),
Wherein the second VAM includes a Trajectory Interception Indicator (TII) and a Maneuver Identifier (MI), wherein the TII reflects how likely a trajectory of the originating ITS-S is going to be intercepted by one or more neighboring ITS-Ss and the MI indicates a type of maneuvering needed of the collision risk avoidance action (Robbel: [0125], [0128], and [0130]).
Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson, Giorgio, and Hoon to incorporate the teachings of Robbel to perform a collision risk analysis based on occupancy values of cells in the DCROM to select a collision avoidance strategy and transmit a second VAM to trigger execution of a collision risk avoidance action because it provides the benefit of controlling the vehicle based on the objects in the vehicle surroundings to avoid collisions. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings.
19. Regarding Claim 54, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 53, and further, Giorgio teaches to generate the DCROM, execution of the instructions is to cause the ego ITS-S to: track, for each layer of the plurality of layers, data related to a specific functionality or a specific sensor type; and accumulate the tracked data from each layer into the base costmap (Giorgio: [0108]-[0111]).
20. Regarding Claim 55, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 54, and further, Richardson teaches the plurality of layers includes a static map layer including a static map of one or more static objects in the area covered by the DCROM, and to wherein generate the DCROM, the execution of the instructions is to cause the ego ITS-S to: generate the static map using a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) algorithm; or generate the static map from an architectural diagram (Giorgio: [0108]-[0111]).
21. Regarding Claim 56, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 55, and further, Richardson teaches the plurality of layers includes an obstacles layer including a obstacles layer occupancy map with sensor data in cells of the plurality of cells with detected objects according to the sensor data, and to generate the DCROM, execution of the instructions is to cause the ego ITS-S to: generate the obstacles layer occupancy map by over-writing the static map with the obtained sensor data (Giorgio: [0108]-[0111]).
22. Regarding Claim 57, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 54, and further, Richardson teaches the plurality of layers includes a proxemics layer including a proxemics layer occupancy map with detected VRUs and a space surrounding the detected VRUs in cells of the plurality of cells with detected objects according to the sensor data (Richardson: [0058] and [0060]).
23. Regarding Claim 59, Richardson teaches a method to be performed by an originating Intelligent Transport System Station (ITS-S), the method comprising: collecting and processing sensor data from an environment (Richardson: [0086] and [0087]);
Generating a layered costmap based on the sensor data, the layered costmap provides an occupancy map with a plurality of cells… wherein the occupancy value defines a probability that the respective cell is occupied by an object… (Richardson: [0056], [0058], and [0059]);
Generating a vulnerable road user awareness message (VAM) including one or more data fields (DFs) to include layered costmap information (Richardson: [0108]),
And wherein the layered costmap information includes one or more of a reference points indicating a location of the originating ITS-S in an area covered by the layered costmap, a grid size indicating dimensions of a grid, a cell size indicating dimensions of each cell of the plurality of cells, and a starting position indicating a starting cell of the grid, wherein other cells of the plurality of cells are to be labelled based on their relation to from the starting cell (Richardson: [0045] and [0052] Note that the DCROM information includes the cell size indicating dimension of each cell because the size is selected to not be too large or too small.).
Richardson fails to explicitly teach the layered costmap including a base costmap and a plurality of layers, wherein each layer of the plurality of layers is generated from a different source or type of sensor that tracks objects in the environment, wherein the base costmap of the layered costmap provides an occupancy map with a plurality of cells that combines data from the plurality of layers, and wherein a respective cell of the plurality of cells includes an occupancy value and a corresponding confidence value… and wherein the corresponding confidence value defines a statistical confidence of the occupancy value for the respective cell at a corresponding time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Giorgio teaches the layered costmap including a base costmap and a plurality of layers, wherein each layer of the plurality of layers is generated from a different source or type of sensor that tracks objects in the environment (Giorgio: [0052]-[0055] and [0056]),
Wherein the base costmap of the layered costmap provides an occupancy map with a plurality of cells that combines data from the plurality of layers (Giorgio: [0112] and [0123]),
And wherein a respective cell of the plurality of cells includes an occupancy value and a corresponding confidence value… and wherein the corresponding confidence value defines a statistical confidence of the occupancy value for the respective cell at a corresponding time (Giorgio: [0123] and [0198] Note that a cell including an occupancy value and corresponding confidence value, wherein the confidence value defines a statistical confidence of the occupancy value is equivalent to determining a set of sensor occupancy grid maps and assigning a weight for each grid map based on the confidence of the sensor reading.).
Richardson and Giorgio are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle occupancy maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson to incorporate the teachings of Giorgio to determine a layered costmap including a base costmap and plurality of layers generated from difference sources and combine the data from the plurality of layers because it provides the benefit of improving consistency of occupancy cost maps by increasing resolution of mapping and as a result, increases the safety of the passengers of the vehicle.
Richardson and Giorgio fail to explicitly teach transmitting or broadcasting the VAM to a set of ITS-Ss including one or more vulnerable road user (VRUs).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hoon teaches transmitting or broadcasting the VAM to a set of ITS-Ss including one or more vulnerable road user (VRUs) (Hoon: [0024], [0025], and [0027]).
Richardson, Giorgio, and Hoon are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson and Giorgio to incorporate the teachings of Hoon to broadcast the vulnerable road user awareness message to a set of ITSs including vulnerable road users because it provides the benefit of increasing awareness between vehicles and pedestrians to avoid a collision. Broadcasting a warning message between units based on the determining collision possibility.
Richardson, Giorgio, and Hoon fail to explicitly teach performing a collision risk analysis (CRA) based on the occupancy values and the corresponding confidence values of respective cells in the layered costmap; selecting a collision avoidance strategy based on the CRA; and transmitting or broadcasting a second VAM, the second VAM to trigger execution of a collision risk avoidance action at one of more of the VRUs based on the collision avoidance strategy, wherein the second VAM includes a Trajectory Interception Indicator (TII) and a Maneuver Identifier (MI), wherein the TII reflects how likely a trajectory of the originating ITS-S is going to be intercepted by one or more neighboring ITS-Ss and the MI indicates a type of maneuvering needed of the collision risk avoidance action.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Robbel teaches to performing a collision risk analysis (CRA) based on the occupancy values and the corresponding confidence values of respective cells in the layered costmap (Robbel: [0124], [0125], and [0140]);
Selecting a collision avoidance strategy based on the CRA; and transmitting or broadcasting a second VAM, the second VAM to trigger execution of a collision risk avoidance action at one of more of the VRUs based on the collision avoidance strategy (Robbel: [0125], [0128], and [0143]),
Wherein the second VAM includes a Trajectory Interception Indicator (TII) and a Maneuver Identifier (MI), wherein the TII reflects how likely a trajectory of the originating ITS-S is going to be intercepted by one or more neighboring ITS-Ss and the MI indicates a type of maneuvering needed of the collision risk avoidance action (Robbel: [0125], [0128], and [0130]).
Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson, Giorgio, and Hoon to incorporate the teachings of Robbel to perform a collision risk analysis based on occupancy values of cells in the DCROM to select a collision avoidance strategy and transmit a second VAM to trigger execution of a collision risk avoidance action because it provides the benefit of controlling the vehicle based on the objects in the vehicle surroundings to avoid collisions. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the vehicle, passengers, and surroundings.
24. Regarding Claim 61, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 59, and further, Richardson teaches the VAM is a first VAM, wherein the first VAM includes an occupancy status indicator (OSI) data field (DF) including a first OSI value and a grid location indicator (GLI) field including a first GLI value, and the method includes (Richardson: [0044], [0052], and [0058]):
And updating the DCROM based on the second OSI and GLI values or the third OSI and GLI values (Richardson: [0060] Note that the DRCOM is continually updated with new values based on the successive observations.).
Richardson fails to explicitly teach receiving a second received VAM from at least a first ITS-S of the set of ITS-Ss, wherein the first ITS-S is a VRU ITS-S, and the second received VAM includes an OSI field including a second OSI value and a GLI field including a second GLI value; receiving a third received VAM or a Decentralized Environmental Notification Message (DENM) from at least a second ITS-S of the set of ITS-Ss, wherein the second ITS-S is a VRU ITS-S or a non-VRU ITS-S, and the third received VAM or the DENM includes an OSI field including a third OSI value and a GLI field including a third GLI value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hoon teaches receiving a second received VAM from at least a first ITS-S of the set of ITS-Ss, wherein the first ITS-S is a VRU ITS-S, and the second received VAM includes an OSI field including a second OSI value and a GLI field including a second GLI value; receiving a third received VAM or a Decentralized Environmental Notification Message (DENM) from at least a second ITS-S of the set of ITS-Ss, wherein the second ITS-S is a VRU ITS-S or a non-VRU ITS-S, and the third received VAM or the DENM includes an OSI field including a third OSI value and a GLI field including a third GLI value (Hoon: [0024], [0025], and [0027] Note that the RSUs exchange the information with each other to predict the possibility of a collision between the pedestrian terminal and vehicle terminal.).
Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson, Giorgio, and Robbel to incorporate the teachings of Hoon to receive a second and third VAM because it provides the benefit of receiving additional messages to update a map. This provides the additional benefit of increasing awareness between vehicles and pedestrians to avoid a collision.
25. Regarding Claim 62, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 59, and further, Richardson teaches the sensor data includes sensor data collected from sensors of the originating ITS-S and one or more of an ego VRU identifier (ID), position data, profile data, speed data, direction data, orientation data, trajectory data, velocity data, and/or other sensor data (Richardson: [0052] and [0086]).
26. Regarding Claim 63, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 59, and further, Robbel teaches wherein the CRA includes one or both of performing Trajectory Interception Probability (TIP) computations and performing a Time to Collision (TTC) computation (Robbel: [0124]).
27. Regarding Claim 64, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 59, and further, Richardson teaches the plurality of layers includes one or more of a static map layer, an obstacles layer, a proxemics layer, and an inflation layer (Giorgio: [0108]-[0111]).
28. Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US 20140163858 A1), in view of Giorgio (US 20210131823 A1), in view of Hoon (KR 20170047143 A; already of record), in view of Robbel (US 20210197805 A1), and in further view of Imai (JP 2015081022 A; already of record).
29. Regarding Claim 58, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 57.
Richardson and Giorgio fail explicitly teach the plurality of layers includes an inflation layer including an inflation layer occupancy map with respective buffer zones surrounding ones of the detected objects determined to be lethal objects.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Imai teaches the plurality of layers includes an inflation layer including an inflation layer occupancy map with respective buffer zones surrounding ones of the detected objects determined to be lethal objects (Imai: [0006]).
Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, Robbel, and Imai are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel to incorporate the teachings of Imai to include an inflation layer occupancy map with respective buffer zones because it provides the benefit of reducing collisions between vehicles/objects and increasing safety of the vehicle and the surroundings.
30. Claim 65-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson (US 20140163858 A1), in view of Giorgio (US 20210131823 A1), in view of Hoon (KR 20170047143 A; already of record), in view of Robbel (US 20210197805 A1), and in further view of Zydek (DE 102016205661 A1).
31. Regarding Claim 65, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 40.
Robbel fails to explicitly teach the one or more VRUs that receive the second VAM are external to the originating ITS-S.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zydek teaches the one or more VRUs that receive the second VAM are external to the originating ITS-S (Zydek: [0007], [0019], and [0025]).
Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, Robbel, and Zydek are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel to incorporate the teachings of Zydek for the VRUs that receives the second VAM are external to the originating ITS-S because it provides the benefit of using a vehicle with better sensors for detecting the environment to determine a collision avoidance strategy. Zydek explicitly explains in [0018] that using the vehicle with better environmental sensors increases the confidence in regards to collision risk and a calculated avoidance maneuver.
32. Regarding Claim 66, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 51.
Robbel fails to explicitly teach the one or more VRUs that receive the second VAM are external to the ego ITS-S.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zydek teaches the one or more VRUs that receive the second VAM are external to the ego ITS-S (Zydek: [0007], [0019], and [0025]).
Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, Robbel, and Zydek are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel to incorporate the teachings of Zydek for the VRUs that receives the second VAM are external to the ego ITS-S because it provides the benefit of using a vehicle with better sensors for detecting the environment to determine a collision avoidance strategy. Zydek explicitly explains in [0018] that using the vehicle with better environmental sensors increases the confidence in regards to collision risk and a calculated avoidance maneuver.
33. Regarding Claim 67, Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel remains as applied above in Claim 59.
Robbel fails to explicitly teach the one or more VRUs that receive the second VAM are external to the originating ITS-S.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zydek teaches the one or more VRUs that receive the second VAM are external to the originating ITS-S (Zydek: [0007], [0019], and [0025]).
Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, Robbel, and Zydek are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of collision warning and vehicle collision avoidance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richardson, Giorgio, Hoon, and Robbel to incorporate the teachings of Zydek for the VRUs that receives the second VAM are external to the ego ITS-S because it provides the benefit of using a vehicle with better sensors for detecting the environment to determine a collision avoidance strategy. Zydek explicitly explains in [0018] that using the vehicle with better environmental sensors increases the confidence in regards to collision risk and a calculated avoidance maneuver.
Response to Arguments
34. Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35. The Applicant has alleged "the claimed subject matter is fundamentally different. As recited by amended claims 40, 51, and 59, the originating ITS-S transmits a second VAM containing a Trajectory Interception Indicator (TII) and a Maneuver Identifier (MI) to external vulnerable road users to trigger their collision avoidance actions. The TII indicates how likely the trajectory of the originating ITS-S is going to be intercepted by neighboring ITS-Ss, and the MI indicates the type of maneuvering needed for the collision risk avoidance action. This is cooperative V2X communication for VRU safety, not autonomous vehicle self-control as taught by Robbel." The Examiner disagrees.
As currently claimed, the second VAM may be transmitted or broadcasted to trigger execution of the collision risk avoidance, but does not indicate where the second VAM is transmitted to. It appears the Applicant is interpreting the claims narrower than they actually read because there is no indication the second VAM is a cooperative V2X communication for VRU safety, as explained in the Applicant's Remarks (filed 1/2/2026). Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second VAM may be transmitted to any location, including the originating ITS-S or VRUs. Additionally, executing the collision risk avoidance action at one or more VRUs may be broadly interpreted as executing the collision risk avoidance action the location of the VRU. The new dependent Claims 65-67 clarifies that second VAM is received by the VRU external to the originating ITS-S. However, Zydek (DE 102016205661 A1) has been applied to teach this.
Robbel teaches, in the independent Claims 4, 51, and 59, to generate a second collision warning based on a time to collision and transmits an emergency braking command to the AV to avoid a collision in at least [0128] and [0130]. The second collision warning in Robbel is equivalent to the second VAM including a TII and MI because the emergency braking command is transmitted responsive to the collision warning identifying a low TTC. The emergency braking command used to generate a new trajectory is equivalent to the Maneuver Identifier and the identified low TTV is equivalent to the Trajectory Interception Indicator.
36. The references applied in the rejections above teach all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
37. Claims 40, 42-49, 51, 54-59, and 61-64 remain rejected and Claims 65-67 are newly rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
38. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
39. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663