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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-14, filed September 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant argues on pg. 7, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action that:
“The claims have been corrected to eliminate the informality noted by the Examiner. It is respectfully submitted that all pending claims are in all aspects in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b).”
In response, the examiner finds the arguments persuasive insofar as the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action are overcome. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant argues on pg. 8, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections presented in the previous office action that:
“Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are amended to address the rejection. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
In response, the examiner finds the arguments persuasive insofar as the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action are overcome. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections presented in the previous office action are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues on pgs. 8-13, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“The claims are amended to recite, in various forms:
Receival of one or more desired measuring locations;
The mobile sensors moving periodically along predefined routes;
Ascertaining that the predefined route of a particular sensor overlaps one of the desired measuring locations, and
Assigning a sampling location to the particular sensor, that is at the desired measuring location.
At least these claim elements in the claimed combination are not described by the cited reference.”
In response, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 are objected to for the following minor informalities:
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, line 1 discloses “wherein said the method.” This is construed as a typographical error. The examiner recommends amending to recite “wherein the method.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4, lines 4-5 discloses “which predefined refractory period must elapse between two consecutive sampling instances.” The examiner recommends amending to recite, “wherein the predefined refractory period must elapse.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, lines 3-4 disclose “which predefined refractory period.” The examiner recommends amending to recite, “wherein the predefined refractory period.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 1, lines 2-3 disclose “the method being performed by a controller.” Claim 1, lines 5-6 discloses “obtaining first data representative of a first predefined route along which a first mobile ambient sensor of the plurality of mobile ambient sensors periodically moves.” It is unclear from what component/device is used for the obtaining. Said another way, the first mobile ambient sensor of the plurality of mobile ambient sensors, are only disclosed as periodically moving, but fails to disclose that they a) take measurements, b) transmit those measurements, and/or c) what those measurements disclose. Therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. Further clarification is required.
Claims 2-5, 8-10, and 13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 4, lines 1-2 disclose “wherein the first data is further representative of a predefined refractory period associated with the first mobile ambient sensor.” Claim 4, lines 3-4 disclose “which predefined refractory period must elapse.” It is unclear if “predefined refractory period” of lines 3-4 is the same “a predefined refractory period” of lines 1-2. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 5, line 2 discloses “a predefined refractory period.” Claim 5, lines 3-4 disclose “which predefined refractory period must elapse.” It is unclear if “predefined refractory period” of lines 3-4 is the same “predefined refractory period” of line 2. For the purposes of the present examination, they are construed the same. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 11, lines 1-3 disclose “A controller operable to control a plurality of mobile ambient sensors, each mobile ambient sensor of the plurality of mobile ambient sensors moving periodically along a predefined route, the controller comprising.” Claim 11, lines 4-6 discloses “an interface configured to receive one or more desired measuring locations, and first data representative of a first predefined route along which a first mobile ambient sensor of the plurality of mobile ambient sensors periodically moves.” It is unclear what component/device performs the transmission, and also what component/device performs a measurement to produce first data. Said another way, the first mobile ambient sensor of the plurality of mobile ambient sensor merely periodically moves along a route, but fails to disclose taking measurements, what data is contained in the measurements, and/or having a capability to transmit. Therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. Further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 13 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
A method of controlling sampling comprising:
receiving one or more desired measuring locations;
obtaining first data representative of a first predefined route
based on the first data, ascertaining that the first predefined route has an overlap with a first desired measuring location of the one or more desired measuring locations, and
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses A method of controlling sampling comprising; construed as a preamble setting forth intended use; receiving one or more desired measuring locations; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; obtaining first data representative of a first predefined route; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; based on the first data, ascertaining that the first predefined route has an overlap with a first desired measuring location of the one or more desired measuring locations, and; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere observation and/or performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
the method being performed by a controller and
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
assigning a first sampling location, wherein the first sampling location is at the first desired measuring location.
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
at a plurality of mobile ambient sensors each moving periodically along a predefined route
along which a first mobile ambient sensor of the plurality of mobile ambient sensors periodically moves;
to the first mobile ambient sensor
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-10 and 13 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claim 11 is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 11 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
receive one or more desired measuring locations and first data representative of a first predefined route
based on the first data, ascertain that the first predefined route overlaps with a first desired measuring location of the one or more desired measuring locations, and
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 11 discloses receive one or more desired measuring locations and first data representative of a first predefined route; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; based on the first data, ascertain that the first predefined route overlaps with a first desired measuring location of the one or more desired measuring locations, and; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation and/or pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 11 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 11 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 11 further recites:
A controller operable to control
the controller comprising:
an interface configured to
processing circuitry configured to:
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 11 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
assign a first sampling location, wherein the first sampling location is at the first desired measuring location
Analyzing this additional element of claim 11 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
a plurality of mobile ambient sensors, each mobile ambient sensor of the plurality of mobile ambient sensors moving periodically along a predefined route,
along which a first mobile ambient sensor of the plurality of mobile ambient sensors periodically moves; and
to the first mobile ambient sensor
Analyzing this additional element of claim 11 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 11 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-5 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 8-10 recite elements of necessary data gathering and extra solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory data carrier storing instructions which is considered a generic computer component or programmed computer. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vial, Alphonse & Daamen, Winnie & Ding, Aaron & Arem, B. & Hoogendoorn, Serge. (2020). AMSense: How Mobile Sensing Platforms Capture Pedestrian/Cyclist Spatiotemporal Properties in Cities. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine. PP. 10.1109/MITS.2019.2953509., hereinafter Vial, in view of Sweet, III et al. (US 2018/0322348 A1), hereinafter Sweet, III.
Regarding claim 1, Vial discloses: A method of controlling sampling at a plurality of mobile ambient sensors each moving periodically along a predefined route, the method being performed by a controller and comprising: (Vial, e.g., see fig. 2A illustrating a high level, multi-layer architecture of the proposed sensing system AMSense, specifically to the Online Fleet Operations (Cloud Layer) comprising a Task Manager Module, a Monitoring Module, a Data Storage, an API; examiner notes all of which are construed as a controller; see also pg. 30, Introduction, para. [0001] disclosing the new digital layer emerging in cities that includes sensors and pervasive mobile systems can help observe and manage different walking and cycling mobility and movement patterns by gathering large amounts of spatiotemporal data; see also pg. 30, Introduction, col. 2, para. [0002] disclosing in this dynamic, multi-sensor approach, real-time data, algorithms, and models are fused to estimate spatiotemporal densities, velocities and flows of active modes using presence, position, and movement data collected by a fleet of mobile sensing platforms. Active data shall be extracted, processed, and shared through a mobile sensing network; see also pg. 37, col. 1, para. [0002] disclosing sensing can either be performed continuously in the background or triggered by a request via cloud-based applications. Requests (i.e., sensing tasks) can be defined specifically, including information about possible targets, planned routes and sensing behaviours, after which, the OFO sends task-related information to respective sensing platforms).
receiving one or more desired measuring locations; (Vial, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 2A illustrating a high level, multi-layer architecture of the proposed mobile sensing system AMSense, specifically to a Sensing Module comprising Active/Passive Sensors and a Localization Module comprising GPS and a digital map, which is communicated across the Edge Data Processing to a Task Manager Module; see also fig. 1 illustrating an urban sensing scenario in which mobile sensing platforms capture pedestrians and cyclists, and provide information about their presence, positions, and movements; see also pg. 32, col. 2, section III. Fundamentals disclosing fig. 1 exposes the proposed active mode sensing system, AMSense, to an urban traffic setting that represents pedestrians walking on side-/crosswalk, and cyclists cycling on a designated bike path/road; examiner notes that the urban setting of fig. 1 is construed as a desired measuring location; see also pgs. 35, col. 2, section B. Functional Architecture – pg. 37, col. 1, para. [0001] disclosing in a top down order, a cloud layer, on top of which diverse applications can be developed, governs an edge data processing layer that connects physical devices (i.e., mobile sensing platforms) with the cloud. Units and modules follow distinct objectives, and are represented in the figure to provide functional context; see also pg. 37, col. 2, para. [0004] disclosing the localization module therefore requires to perform mapping, map updating, and provides map information to other modules; construed by the examiner as receiving).
obtaining first data representative of a first predefined route along which a first mobile ambient sensor of the plurality of mobile ambient sensors moves; (Vial, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 1 illustrating an urban sensing scenario in which mobile sensing platforms (S1)-(S6) traverse the urban sensing scenario; examiner notes mobile sensing platform (S2) is construed as a first mobile ambient sensor driving along a first predefined route (indicated by a line and arrow); see also fig. 2A illustrating a Task Manager Module comprising a Route Planning Routine; see also pg. 33, col. 1, para. [0002] disclosing collecting active mode spatiotemporal information in such a way could increase flexibility in space and time, and data could be generated at different levels of granularity and accuracy. Ideally, this sensing paradigm enables to perform different types of studies ranging from the operational level applying very detailed local data along individual pedestrians/cyclists trajectories, over using data potentially collected with lower accuracy and aggregated to a lower degree of representation that would be applied to study macroscopic phenomena, up to studies at the strategic/tactical level using even more aggregated data over the entire network; see also pg. 37, col. 1, para. [0002] disclosing, the OFO [Online Fleet Operation] offers various other services, such as coordinating user-defined sensing tasks. As such, sensing can either be performed continuously in the background or triggered by a request via cloud-based applications. Requests (i.e., sensing tasks) can be defined specifically, including information about possible targets, planned routes, and sensing behaviours, after which the OFFO sends task-related information to respective sensing platforms; see also pg. 38, col. 2, para. [0002] disclosing behaviour planning entails operating for active mode detection or tracking where waypoints are targeted between which a route needs to be planned. Behaviour planning does however not only select the modelled movements, but also plans how it has to be executed).
based on the first data, ascertaining that the first predefined route has an overlap with a first desired measuring location of the one or more desired measuring locations, and (Vial, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 1 illustrating an urban sensing scenario in which mobile sensing platforms capture pedestrians and cyclists, and provide information about their presence, positions, and movements; examiner notes that all of mobile sensing platforms (S1)-(S6) are explicitly illustrated as driving a route (indicated by a directional arrow), wherein all but mobile sensing platform (S3) overlaps with at least a first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth measuring location which overlap the position of pedestrians (red lines and circles) and cyclists (green lines and circles); see also pg. 33, col. 1, para. [0001] disclosing in fig. 1, AMSense is exposed to an urban sensing situation in which pedestrians and cyclists are observed by one or more mobile sensing platforms. The sensor equipped vehicles drive along the road network and continuously collect sensor data of their surrounding environment. This sensed data can then be processed to seek for the information of interest that is presence, location, and movement of observed pedestrian and cyclists; see also fig. 4 illustrating an overview of potential traffic situations, where mobile sensing platform sense their environment while pedestrians (red circles) and cyclists (green diamonds) are a) in field of view, b) not in field of view, c) not or partially detectable, d) crossing; examiner notes the top left cross-walk is construed as a first desired measuring location of the one or more desired measuring locations)
assigning to the first mobile ambient sensor a first sampling location, wherein the first sampling location is at the first desired measuring location. (Vial, e.g., see rejection as applied above, with regard to figs. 1 and 4, and pg. 37, col. 1, para. [0002]; see also fig. 3 illustrating the various ranges and radii of the particular sensors utilized; see also pg. 38, col. 2, para. [0002] disclosing this manoeuvre information (e.g., orientation, velocity) may be utilized by succeeding vehicles, and provided with lateral and longitudinal trajectory data to best capture the targeted active mode. For instance, the knowledge of a no-detection field (e.g., occlusion), is valuable and may affect the path planning of following vehicles by changing to a lane with better view to capture a pedestrian on the sidewalk. In addition we also include execution monitoring to this module. This ensures that assigned tasks are executed as planned, and possible deviations lead to adjustments in the sensing operations. In the future, it could allow sensing vehicles to actively reposition themselves in order to optimize their sensing orientation (i.e. distance, angle), using path planning that finds an optimal path where a task is assigned, while recalculating positional deviations).
Vial is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: sensors periodically moves.
However, Sweet, III further discloses: sensors periodically moves. (Sweet, III, e.g., see para. [0037] disclosing while a plurality of example devices that may include or be coupled to one or more object detection sensors (104) are illustrated in fig.1A-fig. 1E, the present disclosure is not limited to the illustrated examples or a specific device, and aspects of the present disclosure may relate to any periodically moving or moveable device (such as boats, aircraft, tractors, wireless communication devices, headphones, and so on).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Vial with Sweet III’s sensors periodically moves for at least the reasons that different rates of movement, to include stopping, starting, and variations of speed can produce higher frame rate capture resolution relative to the capture target, as taught by Sweet, III; e.g., see para. [0046].
Regarding claim 2, Vial in view of Sweet, III discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining second data representative of a second predefined route along which a second mobile ambient sensor of the plurality of mobile ambient sensors periodically moves; (Vial, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 1 illustrating an urban sensing scenario in which mobile sensing platforms (S1)-(S6) traverse the urban sensing scenario; examiner notes mobile sensing platform (S6) is construed as a second mobile ambient sensor driving along a second predefined route (indicated by a line and arrow); see also fig. 2A illustrating a Task Manager Module comprising a Route Planning Routine; see also pg. 33, col. 1, para. [0002] disclosing collecting active mode spatiotemporal information in such a way could increase flexibility in space and time, and data could be generated at different levels of granularity and accuracy. Ideally, this sensing paradigm enables to perform different types of studies ranging from the operational level applying very detailed local data along individual pedestrians/cyclists trajectories, over using data potentially collected with lower accuracy and aggregated to a lower degree of representation that would be applied to study macroscopic phenomena, up to studies at the strategic/tactical level using even more aggregated data over the entire network; see also pg. 37, col. 1, para. [0002] disclosing, the OFO [Online Fleet Operation] offers various other services, such as coordinating user-defined sensing tasks. As such, sensing can either be performed continuously in the background or triggered by a request via cloud-based applications. Requests (i.e., sensing tasks) can be defined specifically, including information about possible targets, planned routes, and sensing behaviours, after which the OFFO sends task-related information to respective sensing platforms; see also pg. 38, col. 2, para. [0002] disclosing behaviour planning entails operating for active mode detection or tracking where waypoints are targeted between which a route needs to be planned. Behaviour planning does however not only select the modelled movements, but also plans how it has to be executed).
based on the second data, ascertaining that the second predefined route also has an overlap with the first desired measuring location, and (Vial, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 1 illustrating an urban sensing scenario in which mobile sensing platforms capture pedestrians and cyclists, and provide information about their presence, positions, and movements; examiner notes that all of mobile sensing platforms (S1)-(S6) are explicitly illustrated as driving a route (indicated by a directional arrow), wherein all but mobile sensing platform (S3) overlaps with at least a first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth measuring location which overlap the position of pedestrians (red lines and circles) and cyclists (green lines and circles); examiner notes mobile sensing platform (S6) which is explicitly illustrated as overlapping with the first desired measuring location; e.g., the top left cross-walk; see also pg. 33, col. 1, para. [0001] disclosing in fig. 1, AMSense is exposed to an urban sensing situation in which pedestrians and cyclists are observed by one or more mobile sensing platforms. The sensor equipped vehicles drive along the road network and continuously collect sensor data of their surrounding environment. This sensed data can then be processed to seek for the information of interest that is presence, location, and movement of observed pedestrian and cyclists; see also fig. 4 illustrating an overview of potential traffic situations, where mobile sensing platform sense their environment while pedestrians (red circles) and cyclists (green diamonds) are a) in field of view, b) not in field of view, c) not or partially detectable, d) crossing)
assigning to the second mobile ambient sensor a second sampling location, wherein the second sampling location is also at the first desired measuring location. (Vial, e.g., see rejection as applied above, with regard to figs. 1 and 4, and pg. 37, col. 1, para. [0002]; see also fig. 3 illustrating the various ranges and radii of the particular sensors utilized; see also pg. 38, col. 2, para. [0002] disclosing this manoeuvre information (e.g., orientation, velocity) may be utilized by succeeding vehicles, and provided with lateral and longitudinal trajectory data to best capture the targeted active mode. For instance, the knowledge of a no-detection field (e.g., occlusion), is valuable and may affect the path planning of following vehicles by changing to a lane with better view to capture a pedestrian on the sidewalk. In addition we also include execution monitoring to this module. This ensures that assigned tasks are executed as planned, and possible deviations lead to adjustments in the sensing operations. In the future, it could allow sensing vehicles to actively reposition themselves in order to optimize their sensing orientation (i.e. distance, angle), using path planning that finds an optimal path where a task is assigned, while recalculating positional deviations; examiner notes that mobile sensing platform (S6) is assigned and explicitly illustrated as taking measurements at the first desired measurement location; e.g., the top left cross-walk).
Regarding claim 3, Vial in view of Sweet, III discloses The method of claim 1, wherein said the method includes setting a sampling periodicity to apply at the first sampling location. (Vial; e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also pg. 40, cols. 1-2 disclosing collected information about the pedestrian/cyclists could therefore include presence, locations, speeds, and movements, generated at each sampling time until moving out of the detection radius).
Regarding claim 4, Vial in view of Sweet, III discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the first data is further representative of a predefined refractory period associated with the first mobile ambient sensor, which predefined refractory period must elapse between two consecutive sampling instances; and the sampling periodicity is set in view of the predefined refractory period. (Vial, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 3; see also pg. 41, col. 1, para. [0002] disclosing the pedestrian and cyclist are in unobstructed field of view to their closest vehicle, however can’t be directly captured as they are not inside the vehicles detection radius. This situation occurs in case of large distances or wide angles between the target and sensing vehicle. In this situation no data on the present active modes is generated; construed as a refractory period. Although vehicles may sense their surroundings, no pedestrian/cyclist is detected until they reach one of the vehicles’ sensing radius. Yet, prior data that was generated at the time a pedestrian/cyclist was moving in a vehicle’s sensing radius, might still be available in the network (e.g., data storage); construed as two consecutive sampling instances. Almost fresh information (e.g., near real-time) may then be used to estimate an active mode’s position for a limited time interval; examiner further notes the sampling periodicity is set in view of the refractory period of not generating data due to large distances and/or wide angles).
Regarding claim 5, Vial in view of Sweet, III discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first data is further representative of a predefined refractory period associated with the first mobile ambient sensor, which predefined refractory period must elapse between two consecutive sampling instances, and (Vial, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 3; see also pg. 41, col. 1, para. [0002] disclosing the pedestrian and cyclist are in unobstructed field of view to their closest vehicle, however can’t be directly captured as they are not inside the vehicles detection radius. This situation occurs in case of large distances or wide angles between the target and sensing vehicle. In this situation no data on the present active modes is generated; construed as a refractory period. Although vehicles may sense their surroundings, no pedestrian/cyclist is detected until they reach one of the vehicles’ sensing radius. Yet, prior data that was generated at the time a pedestrian/cyclist was moving in a vehicle’s sensing radius, might still be available in the network (e.g., data storage); construed as two consecutive sampling instances. Almost fresh information (e.g., near real-time) may then be used to estimate an active mode’s position for a limited time interval; examiner further notes the sampling periodicity is set in view of the refractory period of not generating data due to large distances and/or wide angles).
wherein the method further comprises:
based on the first data, ascertaining that the first predefined route has an overlap with a second desired measuring location of the one or more desired measuring locations, and (Vial, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also fig. 4d illustrating mobile sensing platform (S2) moving at velocity in accordance with the directional arrow, which is necessarily directed towards the oncoming mobile sensing platform (S1) which will necessarily overlap on a second desired measuring location of a red pedestrian dot and line transitioning the road; see also pg. 33, col. 1, para. [0001] disclosing in fig. 1, AMSense is exposed to an urban sensing situation in which pedestrians and cyclists are observed by one or more mobile sensing platforms. The sensor equipped vehicles drive along the road network and continuously collect sensor data of their surrounding environment. This sensed data can then be processed to seek for the information of interest that is presence, location, and movement of observed pedestrian and cyclists).
assigning to the first mobile ambient sensor a second sampling location, wherein a time separation or spatial separation of the first and second sampling locations is selected in view of the predefined refractory period and the first predefined route, wherein the second sampling location is at the second desired measuring location. (Vial, e.g., see pg. 41, col. 1, para. [0004] – col. 2, para. [0001] disclosing in a fourth scenario (d), we show a subset of different crossing situations in urban traffic settings. Active modes may use signalized or unsignalized locations to cross a street. Involved vehicles adapt their ego-motion to the crossing situation, which shall have no effects on sensing capabilities. However, less vehicles might be able to see that crossing individual as they’ll have a different perspective on the environment (parallax), e.g., crossing in front of a vehicle create an occlusion shadow for the following vehicles. The quality of collected data is, technological capabilities and external conditions aside, mainly influenced by the positioning of sensing vehicles to their targets, as well as the sensing coverage at a certain location. Likewise, the movement of pedestrians and cyclists is equally influencing the collection of data quality, due to occlusion introduced by infrastructure, vehicles or groups of people. In addition, the movements of vehicles in relation to a sensed radius influences the granularity of the data; examiner notes a time and space separation occurs between the first desired measuring location; e.g., the top left cross-walk and the pedestrian crossing the street, which is set in view of the sensed radius and granularity, which results in sampling at the second desired sampling location).
Regarding claim 8, Vial in view of Sweet, III discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the controller is not associated with the first mobile ambient sensor, wherein data representing the assigned first sampling location is distributed to the first mobile ambient sensor by wireless communication. (Vial, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically to fig. 2 illustrating an Online Fleet Operations (Cloud Layer) including an “Edge Data Processing” which is in wireless connects the Mobile Sensing Platform (Physical Layer) with a Task Manager Module comprising a Control/Coordination Unit through wireless communication; see also pg. 38, col. 1, para. [0004] disclosing the communication module embeds the 5G connectivity and spans across three layers, as illustrated in fig. 1. From architectural perspective, this implies that the communication module integrates the cloud computing, edge computing, SDN, NFV, and combines various wireless elements to deal with the requirements of AMSense services; see also pg. 37, col. 2, para. [0001] disclosing the processing tasks on the gathered data happens at the edge, that is on mobile sensing platforms and the edge infrastructure between mobile devices and cloud services. This design reduces the load of data on the network and the cloud, as sensing, processing, aggregation and application execution are distributed over the entire network, and potentially in real-time).
Regarding claim 9, Vial in view of Sweet, III discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile ambient sensor is mounted on a geolocation-enabled vehicle. (Vial, e.g., see fig. 2 illustrating a high level, multi-layer architecture of the proposed mobile sensing system AMSense, specifically to the Mobile Sensing Platforms Localization Module comprising a GPS/PPP and a Digital map, and also to the Sensing Module Comprising Active sensors; see also pg. 30, col. 2, para. [0002] disclosing in this paper, complementing current active mode sensing methods, we propose a novel sensing system, called AMSense, that grounds on connected intelligent vehicles as mobile sensing nodes in a network, to capture pedestrian/cyclists spatiotemporal properties in cities; see also pg. 31, col. 2, section B. Active Mode Data Collection Methods disclosing Pedestrian trajectories, for example are usually collected exploiting camera footage; see also pg. 38, col. 1, para. [0002] disclosing the sensing module transf