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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (2024/0135809).
Regarding claims 15 and 16. Li teaches a vehicle and a device for validating vehicle-to-X messages by a computing apparatus of a vehicle (0003-0005 – Vehicle camera information is used to validate V2X messages), having the steps of:
receiving at least one vehicle-to-X message comprising information for regulating the traffic flow (0008-0012 – vehicle device receives MAP message and/or SPAT message with position information regarding traffic light(s), 0014 – vehicle sensing data is used to validate the MAP/SPAT message having location information, 0086 – MAP message includes position information of at least one traffic light, 0087 – SPAT message includes location information of at least one traffic light, 0090 – vehicle validates MAP/SPAT message having location data based on vehicle camera information and the location of the vehicle at an intersection, 0102 – vehicle location may be determined via GPS, 0103 – vehicle location may be determined via high-precision map data, 0134 – vehicle location is used to validate MAP/SPAT message with location information, 0161 – vehicle validates MAP/SPAT messages having position data by using sensing data); and
validating the at least one message, wherein, within the framework of the validation, at least a part of the message content comprised by the at least one message is checked for the consistency thereof (0008-0012 – vehicle device receives MAP message and/or SPAT message with position information regarding traffic light(s), 0014 – vehicle sensing data is used to validate the MAP/SPAT message having location information, 0086 – MAP message includes position information of at least one traffic light, 0087 – SPAT message includes location information of at least one traffic light, 0090 – vehicle validates MAP/SPAT message having location data based on vehicle camera information and the location of the vehicle at an intersection, 0102 – vehicle location may be determined via GPS, 0103 – vehicle location may be determined via high-precision map data, 0134 – vehicle location is used to validate MAP/SPAT message with location information, 0161 – vehicle validates MAP/SPAT messages having position data by using sensing data).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
2. Claims 1, 3-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Frye et al (2022/0345856).
Regarding claims 1. Li teaches a method for validating vehicle-to-X messages by a computing apparatus of a vehicle (0003-0005 – Vehicle camera information is used to validate V2X messages), having the steps of:
receiving at least one vehicle-to-X message comprising information for regulating the traffic flow (0008-0012 – vehicle device receives MAP message and/or SPAT message with position information regarding traffic light(s), 0014 – vehicle sensing data is used to validate the MAP/SPAT message having location information, 0086 – MAP message includes position information of at least one traffic light, 0087 – SPAT message includes location information of at least one traffic light, 0090 – vehicle validates MAP/SPAT message having location data based on vehicle camera information and the location of the vehicle at an intersection, 0102 – vehicle location may be determined via GPS, 0103 – vehicle location may be determined via high-precision map data, 0134 – vehicle location is used to validate MAP/SPAT message with location information, 0161 – vehicle validates MAP/SPAT messages having position data by using sensing data); and
validating the at least one message, wherein, within the framework of the validation, at least a part of the message content comprised by the at least one message is checked for the consistency thereof (0008-0012 – vehicle device receives MAP message and/or SPAT message with position information regarding traffic light(s), 0014 – vehicle sensing data is used to validate the MAP/SPAT message having location information, 0086 – MAP message includes position information of at least one traffic light, 0087 – SPAT message includes location information of at least one traffic light, 0090 – vehicle validates MAP/SPAT message having location data based on vehicle camera information and the location of the vehicle at an intersection, 0102 – vehicle location may be determined via GPS, 0103 – vehicle location may be determined via high-precision map data, 0134 – vehicle location is used to validate MAP/SPAT message with location information, 0161 – vehicle validates MAP/SPAT messages having position data by using sensing data).
Regarding amendment 11/25/2025. Li does not explicitly teach wherein the message content includes one or more individual portions and a level of trust is determined for each of the one or more individual portions and each of the one or more portions are marked with a determined level of trust.
Frye teaches the check for logical inconsistency in this case may include utilizing various data fields of the V2X message (e.g., each of the one or more individual portions) in terms of a cross-validation (0014). For example, in a length field containing a CAM message (CAM: Cooperative Awareness Message), in which a vehicle length is included and a vehicle type field, in which the type of vehicle is conveyed (0014). If the vehicle type field includes the value for a passenger car and the value of the length field corresponds, for example, to that of a truck, the receiver determines that a logical inconsistency in the message is present, since the evaluated information is unable to be unambiguously assigned either to a passenger car or unambiguously to a truck (0014). The message may then be marked or classified as non-trustworthy or may be directly rejected in order to protect the vehicle system, in particular, the vehicle control, from an unauthorized access based on content of the V2X message to be processed (0014). Other fields of the V2X message may also be validated/checked for inconsistencies (0044 – vehicle type field of the V2X message, vehicle length field of the V2X message as well as a vehicle mass field of the V2X message).
It would have been extremely obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li to determine the level of trust for each field of V2X message as taught by Frye in order to classify the field(s) of the V2X message as non-trustworthy thereby protecting vehicle system.
Regarding claim 3. Li teaches wherein the message content comprises signal status information for describing an authorization to proceed for a multiplicity of lanes of a roadway, wherein the consistency of the signal status information of at least a part of the multiplicity of lanes is examined (0060 – the V2X information further includes lane information, 0064 – MAP message may include complex intersection description, road section description, high-speed curves contour, lane line information, and the like, 0077 – vehicle obtains ID information for the lane, lane steering of the lane from the MAP message, to locate the PhaseID in the MAP message … so as to obtain information about a signal light color and a remaining time, 0091 – the MAP message may further include lane information of the signal light, 0092-0093 – MAP message includes position information of the traffic light and lane information set).
Regarding claim 4. Li teaches wherein the message content comprises signal status information, wherein the signal status information is examined with a light detection system of the vehicle (0005 – camera equipped on the vehicle is used to collect image of an intersection in front of the vehicle and the signal light state is recognized by using the image data, 0009 – vehicle image data of traffic light, 0016 – vehicle image data, 0079 – vehicle camera used to collect image data of the intersection in the front of the vehicle, 0090 – traffic light image data collected, 0111 – sensor of vehicle collects image data).
Regarding claim 5. Li teaches wherein the message content comprises topological definitions of lanes, wherein the consistency of the topological definitions of the lanes with features of the infrastructure detected by environment sensors of the vehicle is examined (0060 – the V2X information further includes lane information, 0064 – MAP message may include complex intersection description, road section description, high-speed curves contour, lane line information, and the like, 0077 – vehicle obtains ID information for the lane, lane steering of the lane from the MAP message, to locate the PhaseID in the MAP message … so as to obtain information about a signal light color and a remaining time, 0091 – the MAP message may further include lane information of the signal light, 0092-0093 – MAP message includes position information of the traffic light and lane information set, 0094-0095 – MAP message includes the lane information set, 0104-0108 – each piece of lane information includes a lane identifier, longitude and latitude information, and steering information).
Regarding claim 12. Li teaches wherein the message content is checked by utilizing information for describing features concerning the transmitter, and the information for describing features concerning the transmitter is stored in a data memory of the vehicle and/or is provided by a data processing apparatus not belonging to the vehicle (0003 – MAP message is used to transmit a plurality of types of geographical road information and the SPAT message is used to transmit current state and time information of one or more traffic lights, 0060 – RSU may transmit information regarding at least one traffic light, such as lane direction, lane steering information, a signal light color, and a remaining time of the traffic light, 0064 – MAP message is used to transmit a plurality of types of geographical road information, and content of the MAP message may be include a complex intersection description, a road section description, a high-speed curve contour, lane line information and the like, 0077 – after obtaining the MAP message and SPAT message from the roadside unit, the vehicle obtains ID information of the lane, lane steering information maneuvers, and longitude and latitude of the lane from the MAP message, to locate PhaseID in the MAP message, and then searches for Sequence of phase from the SPAT message to find the phase state corresponding to PhaseID, so as to obtain information about a traffic light color and a remaining time).
3. Claims 2 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Frye further in view of Yang et al (2024/0323657).
Regarding claim 2. Li in view of Frye not teach wherein a reception rate of at least two consecutively received messages, the comprised information of which displays the same transmitter, is established and the reception rate is compared with a threshold value.
Yang teaches validating V2X messages (0002). Yang teaches comparing multiple messages from the same transmitter for consistency (0088, TABLE 6 – two or messages from the same station that triggers the observation, TABLE 7 – Inconsistencies of the incoming message with previous messages of the same type emitted from the same station, 0262 – update object list based on consecutive measurements).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li in view of Frye to compare multiple messages as taught by Yang in order to further validate traffic light information.
Regarding claim 13. Li in view of Frye do not teach wherein the message content of at least two received messages displaying the same transmitter is utilized for checking at least one item of this message content of the at least two received messages.
Yang teaches validating V2X messages (0002). Yang teaches comparing multiple messages from the same transmitter for consistency (0088, TABLE 6 – two or messages from the same station that triggers the observation, TABLE 7 – Inconsistencies of the incoming message with previous messages of the same type emitted from the same station, 0262 – update object list based on consecutive measurements).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li in view of Frye to compare multiple messages as taught by Yang in order to further validate traffic light information.
Regarding claim 14. Li in view of Frye do not teach wherein the message content of the at least two received messages comprises traffic control signals which are examined in their temporal sequence and/or timing for inconsistencies.
Yang teaches validating V2X messages (0002). Yang teaches comparing multiple messages from the same transmitter for consistency (0088, TABLE 6 – two or messages from the same station that triggers the observation, TABLE 7 – Inconsistencies of the incoming message with previous messages of the same type emitted from the same station, 0262 – update object list based on consecutive measurements).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li in view of Frye to compare multiple messages as taught by Yang in order to further validate traffic light information.
4. Claims 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Frye further in view of Priller (2023/0422006).
Regarding claim 6. Li in view of Frye do not teach wherein a reception direction of the signal transmitting the received message is established and it is examined whether the established reception direction of position information for describing a position of the transmitter, which is comprised by the message content, is inconsistent.
Priller teaches the actual transmitter position of the transmitter can be determined using the local environmental geodata and the actual physical received signal property of the V2X message and compared with the purported transmitter position of the transmitter (0032, 0024).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li in view of Frye to compare received signal property of the V2X as taught by Priller in order to validate the direction of the traffic light message.
Regarding claim 7. Li in view of Frye do not teach wherein a reception power (RSSI) of the signal transmitting the received message is established and it is examined whether the established reception power of position information for describing a position of the transmitter, which is comprised by the message content, is inconsistent.
Priller teaches a simple plausibility check of the received signal strength of the received V2X message (0011, 0048, 0052) and local geodata (0025, 0030) to determine distance and/or objections positioned in the surroundings. The actual transmitter position of the transmitter can be determined using the local environmental geodata and the actual physical received signal property of the V2X message and compared with the purported transmitter position of the transmitter (0032).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li in view of Frye to compare received signal property of the V2X as taught by Priller in order to validate the direction of the traffic light message.
Regarding claim 8. Li in view of Frye do not teach wherein, on the basis of the established reception power, a transmission power is established with which the signal transmitting the received message was sent out by the transmitter and it is examined whether the established transmission power is inconsistent with a transmission power according to the specifications.
Priller teaches a simple plausibility check of the received signal strength of the received V2X message (0011, 0048, 0052) and local geodata (0025, 0030) to determine distance and/or objections positioned in the surroundings. The actual transmitter position of the transmitter can be determined using the local environmental geodata and the actual physical received signal property of the V2X message and compared with the purported transmitter position of the transmitter (0032).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li in view of Frye to compare received signal property of the V2X as taught by Priller in order to validate the direction of the traffic light message.
Regarding claim 9. Li in view of Frye do not teach wherein objects which can influence the reception power of the signal transmitting the received message are taken into account during the establishment of the transmission power.
Priller teaches a simple plausibility check of the received signal strength of the received V2X message (0011, 0048, 0052) and local geodata (0025, 0030) to determine distance and/or objections positioned in the surroundings. The actual transmitter position of the transmitter can be determined using the local environmental geodata and the actual physical received signal property of the V2X message and compared with the purported transmitter position of the transmitter (0032).
Priller teaches taking into consideration of objects that influence the received signal (abstract, 0005, 0015-0016, 0020-0021, 0023-0024) in order to determine if the low signal strength is present due to a great distance from the vehicle, or due to objects positioned in the surroundings of the transmitters and receivers (0025).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li in view of Frye to consider objects in the surrounding environment as taught by Priller in order to determine if the low signal strength is present due to a great distance from the vehicle, or due to objects positioned in the surroundings of the transmitters and receivers
Regarding claim 11. Li in view of Frye do not teach wherein the message content comprises information for describing a transmission power of the signal transmitting the message, wherein it is examined whether the established reception power is inconsistent with the information for describing the transmission power, which is comprised by the message content, and/or whether the established transmission power is inconsistent with information for describing the transmission power, which is comprised by the message content.
Priller teaches a simple plausibility check of the received signal strength of the received V2X message (0011, 0048, 0052) and local geodata (0025, 0030) to determine distance and/or objections positioned in the surroundings. The actual transmitter position of the transmitter can be determined using the local environmental geodata and the actual physical received signal property of the V2X message and compared with the purported transmitter position of the transmitter (0032). Priller teaches taking into consideration of objects that influence the received signal (abstract, 0005, 0015-0016, 0020-0021, 0023-0024) in order to determine if the low signal strength is present due to a great distance from the vehicle, or due to objects positioned in the surroundings of the transmitters and receivers (0025).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li in view of Frye to compare received signal property of the V2X as taught by Priller in order to validate the direction of the traffic light message.
5. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Frye and Priller further in view of Lee et al (2013/0329651).
Regarding claim 10. Li in view of Frye and Priller do not teach wherein the transmission power is established if the received message corresponds to a message type which is excluded from a reduction of the transmission power, and/or if the vehicle receiving the message is in an area in which sending out messages having a transmission power according to the specifications is not permitted.
Lee teaches using a power control apparatus (figure 1, item 100) which controls power to exclude the second roadside apparatus 30b, which is the farthest from the vehicle 10, from the communication radius thereby minimizing interference (0036-0038).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li in view of Frye and Priller to use the power control apparatus as taught by Lee in order to exclude roadside units that are located a far distance from the vehicle thereby reducing interference.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
a) Applicant generally argues Li does not teach the newly recited claim language that a level of trust is determined for each of the one or more individual portions of the message content and that each of the one or more portions are marked with a determined level of trust (page 6).
The Examine agrees. However, Frye was used to teach the newly recited claim limitations.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
---(2021/0067967) Arzelier et al teaches the level of trust for each of one or more individual portions of the message content and that each of the one or more portions are marked with a determined level of trust (see at least 0176-0178 – each parameter of the V2X message can be tagged (e.g., marked) with an indication as to whether the parameter seems trustable or not).
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARRY W TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/BARRY W TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646