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
The amendment filed 6/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8, and remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/27/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that neither the primary reference nor the secondary references disclose or suggest the amended limitations regarding the use of an AI/ML system for calculating safety metrics or deriving a confidence level. Although Maschue does not teach the particulars of an AI/ML system, Maschue continues to teach the core concept of including a safety metric within the content of a decentralized environment notification message.
Applicant does not address the disclosure of Crego (Document ID: US 11648962 B1), which was previously used to reject claim 12 alongside Maschue in regards to a machine learning system. Crego teaches a machine learning model for continuously receiving environment and perception data in order to determine whether a safety metric is within a threshold. Crego constantly checks the machine learning results as well to ensure that they are trustworthy. Morvan on the other hand does not explicitly use an ML/AI system for its intelligent transport system, but Morvan does include a confidence level within the DEN message.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 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 12 has been amended to recite the limitation "IT-S app" in regards to the ITS-S application described in claim 1. The terminology of amended claim 12 continues to be inconsistent with the limitation of claim 1, therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In the interest of compact prosecution the term will be understood to mean “ITS-S app”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, and 10-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschue et al., hereinafter Maschue (Document ID: US 20230217227 A1) in view of Crego et al., hereinafter Crego (Document ID: US 11648962 B1), and further in view of Morvan et al., hereinafter Morvan (Document ID: US 20230104083 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maschue teaches an originating Intelligent Transport System Station (ITS-S) (user equipments (UEs) 115, see FIG. 1), comprising:
communication circuitry to transmit or broadcast a generated decentralized environmental notification (DEN) message (DENM) to one or more other ITS-Ss (transmit processor 264, see FIG. 2 and P [0140] linking the ability to transmit and receiving safety message (SM) logic 803. See also P [0147]: “the safety message includes… a Decentralized Environment Notification Message (DENM)”); and
processor circuitry connected to the communication circuitry, wherein the processor circuitry operates a DEN facility to (controller/processor 280, see at least P [0140]: “UE 115, under control of controller/processor 280, transmits and receives signals via wireless radios 801a-r and antennas 252a-r. Wireless radios 801a-r includes various components and hardware, as illustrated in FIG. 2”):
And Maschue teaches receiving a DENM trigger request from an ITS-S application (app) when a safety metric is within a safety metric threshold in at least FIG. 5 and P [0131]: “the collision zone trigger condition is based on distance, time to collision (TTC), or both.”, wherein the distance and time to collision are examples of safety metrics.
But Maschue does not teach that the safety metric is calculated using an artificial intelligence/machine learning (A/ML) system that continuously process sensor data measurements using computer vision, perception, and object tracking.
Instead, Crego, whose invention pertains to predicting safety metrics associated with near-miss conditions for a vehicle, teaches in Col 4, Line 59 “a training system may utilize and/or refine a machine-learned model… and receive a predicted safety metric from the machine learned model”. See also FIGs. 1 and 3 which indicate the use of a perception component 322 for tracking objects and Col 18, line 59 for using computer vision to classify perceived objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety metric consideration and message transmission of Maschue with the safety metrics calculated from machine learning of Crego in order to utilize the processing capabilities of machine learning to compile "collision, near-miss conditions, and/or safe events in log data...without requiring users to review an entirety of a simulation to identify safety-critical events." as in Col 5, Line 3 of Crego.
Maschue additionally teaches triggering generation of the DENM to include the safety metric in at least P [0088]: “In the aspects described herein, a wireless communication device selectively includes particular pieces of information in a safety message in response to corresponding trigger conditions”. Crego teaches starting in Col 27, Line 31 a process for using values from the machine learning system to determine a difference between safety metrics and a predicted safety metric in order to reconcile the two. More specifically “the training system 202 may determine a difference between a likelihood of collision as labeled in log data and the predicted likelihood of collision associated with the predicted safety metric 210.” The difference is understood as the ML system using values to determine a system confidence level in the machine learning results.
But Maschue and Crego thus do not explicitly teach also including a confidence level derived using confidence values from the AI/ML system based on the DENM trigger request.
Instead, Morvan, whose invention pertains to a cooperative intelligent transportation system for warning messages, teaches in P [0254] that “the confidence level are also included in the Perceived Object Containers” of a DENM message as seen in FIG. 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitted safety message and safety metric confidence value reconciliation of Maschue and Crego with the confidence value included in a DEN message of Morvan in order to reflect the system's confidence with providing object recognition as in P [0181] of Morvan, as well as confidence with the machine learning model used to provide a safety metric, which is crucially based on object perception and tracking.
Regarding claim 2, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 1, and Maschue further teaches that
the safety metric is a minimum safe distance metric based on one or more of a distance between the originating ITS-S and a perceived object, a relative position of a perceived object with respect to the originating ITS-S, a relative speed between the originating ITS-S and the perceived object, a maximum possible acceleration of the originating ITS-S or the perceived object, a maximum possible deceleration of the originating ITS-S or the perceived object, a minimum possible deceleration of the originating ITS-S or the perceived object, and a response time of the originating ITS-S or the perceived object (see at least P [0131]: “The distance threshold for the collision zone may be static, dynamic, and/or based on speed or operating conditions. Additionally, the TTC condition may be static or dynamic and based on a size of the collision zone. The distance between devices and TTC may be calculated based on the transmitting device's speed and trajectory and the estimated trajectory of the other devices.”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 1, and Maschue further teaches that
the safety metric is a modified time to collision (MTTC), wherein the MTTC is a predicted time until a collision takes place between the originating ITS-S and a perceived object when the originating ITS-S and/or the perceived object maintain one or more of a speed, acceleration, or trajectory profile (see at least P [0131]: “the collision zone trigger condition is based on distance, time to collision (TTC), or both… the TTC condition may be static or dynamic and based on a size of the collision zone. The distance between devices and TTC may be calculated based on the transmitting device's speed and trajectory and the estimated trajectory of the other devices.” Note that the dynamic TTC condition would be a modified time to collision based on speed and trajectory).
Regarding claim 10, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 1, but Maschue and Crego do not explicitly teach that the processor circuitry is to operate the DEN facility to:
generate the DENM to include the safety metric in an à la-carte container of the DENM .
Instead, Morvan teaches a DENM 300 with an à la-carte container 360 that “contains additional information that is not provided by the other containers” (P [0154]). Additionally, “Container 360 may be renamed as PreCrash Container or the like in case of a PreCrash event… or be renamed as CollisionInformation Container or the like in case of a Collision Risk event”. Finally, the collision data container 366 contains information such as predicted paths and safety metric information such as time to collision TTC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety message and trigger condition of Maschue and Crego with the à la-carte container of the DENM of Morvan in order to exercise a design choice to include the safety metric in the a la carte container in accordance with DENM standards in the version 1.3.1 of the ETSI EN 302 637-3 specification. (Morvan P [0131]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 1, and Maschue further teaches in P [0088] selectively including pieces of information in “a safety message in response to corresponding trigger conditions”, wherein the conditions may include events. But Maschue and Crego do not explicitly teach that the processor circuitry is to operate the DEN facility to:
generate the DENM to include a cause code as an event type in a situation container of the DENM.
Instead, Morvan teaches in at least FIG. 3 and P [0145]-[0146] “Situation Container 340 contains information describing the warning event. In particular, it includes an eventType DF 345 that provides a description of the event type being detected… eventType 345 is composed of two DEs, namely the causeCode and subCauseCode.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety message and trigger condition of Maschue and Crego with the situation container including a cause code as an event type of Morvan in order to exercise a design choice for DENM organization in accordance with DENM standards in the version 1.3.1 of the ETSI EN 302 637-3 v1.3.1 (Morvan P [0146]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 1, and Maschue further teaches an autonomous vehicle as UE which is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to include sensors that collect data. Maschue, however, does not explicitly teach that the processor circuitry is to operate the IT-S app to:
obtain sensor data from respective sensors of a set of sensors; and
determine the safety metric based on the obtained sensor data;
Instead, Crego, whose invention pertains to predicting safety metrics associated with near-miss conditions for a vehicle, teaches in Col 2 Line 4 “a vehicle may capture sensor data (e.g., lidar, radar, time of flight, and the like) as the vehicle proceeds through an environment, and may use the sensor data to generate predictions of object behavior”. Furthermore, in Col 16, Line 22 “the safety metric may include a portion of the log data associated with a time the sensor data was captured, and the training system 202 may determine the safety metric and/or a parameter from the log data”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous vehicle with safety message sending capabilities of Maschue with the safety metric determined from sensor data of Crego in order to associate sensor data with safety metrics and real world data to train an autonomous vehicle and enhance safety on future rides (Crego Col 2, Line 23).
Maschue then does teach sending the DENM trigger request to the DEN facility when the safety metric is within the safety metric threshold in P [0088]: “a host vehicle (HV) will include a PH information in a BSM or CAM/DENM based on one or more conditions being satisfied”. See also step 520 in FIG. 5.
Regarding claim 13, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 1, and Maschue further teaches that
the originating ITS-S is a vehicle ITS-S, a roadside ITS-S, or a vulnerable road user ITS-S (see at least FIG. 1 which shows mobile devices and vehicles as UEs 115, as well as road side stations 105 as possible embodiments of an originating ITS-S).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Maschue teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions of a decentralized environmental notification service (DEN) facility (see at least P [0144]: “the apparatus may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded thereon and the program code may be executable by a computer for causing the computer to perform operations described herein with reference to the apparatus”), and a method of operating a decentralized environmental notification service (DEN) facility of an Intelligent Transport System Station (ITS-S).
Maschue additionally teaches receiving a DENM trigger request from an ITS-S application (app) when a safety metric is within a safety metric threshold in at least FIG. 5 and P [0131]: “the collision zone trigger condition is based on distance, time to collision (TTC), or both.”, wherein the distance and time to collision are examples of safety metrics.
But Maschue does not teach that the safety metric is calculated using an artificial intelligence/machine learning (A/ML) system that continuously process sensor data measurements using computer vision, perception, and object tracking
Instead, Crego, whose invention pertains to predicting safety metrics associated with near-miss conditions for a vehicle, teaches in Col 4, Line 59 “a training system may utilize and/or refine a machine-learned model… and receive a predicted safety metric from the machine learned model”. See also FIGs. 1 and 3 which indicate the use of a perception component 322 for tracking objects and Col 18, line 59 for using computer vision to classify perceived objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety metric consideration and message transmission of Maschue with the safety metrics calculated from machine learning of Crego in order to utilize the processing capabilities of machine learning to compile "collision, near-miss conditions, and/or safe events in log data...without requiring users to review an entirety of a simulation to identify safety-critical events." as in Col 5, Line 3 of Crego.
Maschue additionally teaches generating of the DENM to include the safety metric in at least P [0088]: “In the aspects described herein, a wireless communication device selectively includes particular pieces of information in a safety message in response to corresponding trigger conditions”. Crego teaches starting in Col 27, Line 31 a process for using values from the machine learning system to determine a difference between safety metrics and a predicted safety metric in order to reconcile the two. More specifically “the training system 202 may determine a difference between a likelihood of collision as labeled in log data and the predicted likelihood of collision associated with the predicted safety metric 210.” The difference is understood as the ML system using values to determine a system confidence level in the machine learning results.
But Maschue and Crego do not explicitly teach generating a DENM to include the safety metric and a confidence level derived using confidence values from the AI/ML system in an à la-carte container of the DENM based on the DENM trigger request.
Instead, Morvan teaches a DENM 300 with an à la-carte container 360 that “contains additional information that is not provided by the other containers” (P [0154]). Additionally, “Container 360 may be renamed as PreCrash Container or the like in case of a PreCrash event… or be renamed as CollisionInformation Container or the like in case of a Collision Risk event”. Finally, the collision data container 366 contains information such as predicted paths and safety metric information such as time to collision TTC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety message and trigger condition of Maschue and Crego with the à la-carte container of the DENM of Morvan in order to exercise a design choice to include the safety metric in the a la carte container in accordance with DENM standards in the version 1.3.1 of the ETSI EN 302 637-3 specification (Morvan P [0131]).
Finally Maschue teaches the step to
cause transmission or broadcast the DENM to one or more other ITS-Ss (see at least P [0088]: “a host vehicle (HV) will include a PH information in a BSM or CAM/DENM based on one or more conditions being satisfied”. See also step 520 in FIG. 5. ).
Regarding claim 20 specifically, Maschue and Crego do not explicitly teach
a cause code in an situation container of the DENM
Instead, Morvan teaches in at least FIG. 3 and P [0145]-[0146] “Situation Container 340 contains information describing the warning event. In particular, it includes an eventType DF 345 that provides a description of the event type being detected… eventType 345 is composed of two DEs, namely the causeCode and subCauseCode.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety message and trigger condition of Maschue and Crego with the situation container including a cause code as an event type of Morvan in order to exercise a design choice for DENM organization in accordance with DENM standards in the version 1.3.1 of the ETSI EN 302 637-3 v1.3.1 (Morvan P [0146]).
Regarding claims 15 and 21, modified Maschue teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14 and the method of claim 20, and Maschue further teaches that
the safety metric includes one or more of one or more minimum safe distances; one or more minimum safety distance factors; a proper response action; a rules of the road violation; a driving behavioral competency metric; a modified time to collision; and a post encroachment time metric (see at least P [0131]: “The distance threshold for the collision zone may be static, dynamic, and/or based on speed or operating conditions. Additionally, the TTC condition may be static or dynamic and based on a size of the collision zone. The distance between devices and TTC may be calculated based on the transmitting device's speed and trajectory and the estimated trajectory of the other devices.” Note that the dynamic TTC condition would be a modified time to collision based on speed and trajectory).
Regarding claims 16 and 22, modified Maschue teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14 and the method of claim 20, and Maschue further teaches in P [0119] that a second UE “may update its records” and then “determine to send a BSM in response to a specific trigger, such as determining a new device is present (e.g., new temporary ID) or that a device is in close proximity to the second UE 115b.” In P [0120] it is clear that the determination is based on “how many trigger conditions were satisfied, which trigger conditions were satisfied, or a combination thereof,” which includes the aforementioned collision trigger as a safety metric. Maschue therefore teaches an update of the safety metric and transmitting an updated message to one or more other ITS-Ss.
Maschue and Crego do not, however, explicitly teach the updated safety metric in the à la-carte container of the update DENM
Instead, Morvan teaches a DENM 300 with an à la-carte container 360 that “contains additional information that is not provided by the other containers” (P [0154]). Additionally, “Container 360 may be renamed as PreCrash Container or the like in case of a PreCrash event… or be renamed as CollisionInformation Container or the like in case of a Collision Risk event”. Finally, the collision data container 366 contains information such as predicted paths and safety metric information such as time to collision TTC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the updated safety message and trigger condition of Maschue and Crego with the à la-carte container of the DENM of Morvan in order to exercise a design choice to include the updated safety metric in the a la carte container in accordance with DENM standards in the version 1.3.1 of the ETSI EN 302 637-3 specification (Morvan P [0131]).
Regarding claims 17 and 23, modified Maschue teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14 and the method of claim 20, and Maschue further teaches that execution of the instructions is to cause the originating ITS-S to:
cause repeat transmission or broadcast of the DENM to the one or more other ITS-Ss based on a repetition interval (see at least P [0085] for appending information included in the safety message at a regular interval, as well as P [0087] for regular frequency transmission).
Regarding claims 18 and 24, modified Maschue teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14 and the method of claim 20, and Maschue further teaches in P [0125] to not include certain information in the safety message when no trigger condition is satisfied. In P [0127] there is a limited amount of time for which the message is repeatedly transmission, and once the condition, such as a collision zone detection condition, is no longer satisfied, the transmission ends.
But Maschue and Crego do not explicitly teach a DENM termination trigger and causing transmission or broadcast the termination DENM.
Instead, Morvan teaches in Table 1 that “cancellation DENM is generated” based on certain events or timestamps, as well as transmission of the termination DENM.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the updated safety message and unsatisfied trigger condition of Maschue and Crego with the termination or cancellation DENM of Morvan in order to exercise a design choice to stop transmission of a safety message and the particular safety metric in accordance with DENM standards in the version 1.3.1 of the ETSI TS 102 894-2 specification (Morvan P [0135]).
Regarding claims 19 and 25, modified Maschue teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18 and the method of claim 24, but Maschue does not explicitly teach that
the termination DENM is a cancellation DENM or a negation DENM.
Instead, Morvan teaches in Table 1 that “cancellation DENM is generated” based on certain events or timestamps, as well as transmission of the cancellation DENM.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the updated safety message and unsatisfied trigger condition of Maschue with the cancellation DENM of Morvan in order to exercise a design choice to stop transmission of a safety message and the particular safety metric in accordance with DENM standards in the version 1.3.1 of the ETSI TS 102 894-2 specification (Morvan P [0135]).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschue in view of Crego and Morvan, and further in view of Juliato et al., hereinafter Juliato (Document ID: US 20200226274 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 2, but Maschue, Crego, and Morvan do not explicitly teach that the minimum safe distance metric is based on one or more of:
a comparison of a lateral distance (LaD) between the originating ITS-S and the perceived object with a minimum safe LaD (MSLaD);
a comparison of a Longitudinal Distance (LoD) between the originating ITS-S and the perceived object with a minimum safe LoD (MSLoD); and
a comparison of a Vertical Distance (VD) between the originating ITS-S and the perceived object with a minimum safe VD (MSVD),
wherein the safety metric threshold is based on one or more of the MSLaD, the MSLoD, and the MSVD.
Instead, Juliato, whose invention pertains to safety based message filtering for between vehicle communication, teaches in at least P [0075] and [0089] a minimum longitudinal safety distance and an evaluation in view of current longitudinal distance as part of a danger threshold which is considered a safety metric. P [0094] establishes the use of lateral safety in an interchangeable manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance threshold for collision zone trigger condition of Maschue, Crego, and Morvan with the longitudinal and lateral distance considerations of Juliato in order to establish a safety driving model for message characterization and filtering, allowing a vehicle to "allow or deny the message to the vehicle control system" (Juliato P [0129]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 3, but Maschue, Crego, and Morvan do not explicitly teach that
the minimum safe distance metric is a minimum safe distance factor (MSDF), wherein the MSDF is based on one or more of:
a ratio of the LaD to the MSLaD;
a ratio of the LoD to the MSLoD); and
a ratio of the Vertical Distance VD to the MSVD.
Instead Juliato teaches in P [0100] a “significance threshold” as a minimum safe distance factor (MSDF) that depends on a “distance between vehicles and present speed. In some instances, a significance threshold may be a function of distance (e.g., a percentage of the separation distance) and a factor of the speed.” Note that Juliato defines comparisons between current and minimum values for lateral and longitudinal distances, and the percentage of separation distance in either dimension is considered a mathematical ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance threshold for collision zone trigger condition of Maschue, Crego, and Morvan with the longitudinal and lateral distance considerations and percentage of separation distance of Juliato in order to establish a safety driving model for message characterization and filtering, allowing a vehicle to "allow or deny the message to the vehicle control system" (Juliato P [0129]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 1, but Maschue, Crego, and Morvan do not explicitly teach that the processor circuitry is to operate the DEN facility to:
generate the DENM to include the safety metric and a corresponding confidence level of the safety metric.
Instead, Juliato teaches in at least P [0067]: “a real-time assessment value (e.g., confidence value 506” for rating confidence of a safety-based message.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety message and trigger condition of Maschue, Crego, and Morvan with the confidence value of Juliato in order to determine whether or not to allow a message to be used by one or more nodes of a vehicle control system (Juliato P [0098]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschue in view of Crego and Morvan, and further in view of Kim (Document ID: US 20180297470 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 1, but Maschue, Crego, and Morvan do not explicitly teach that
the safety metric is a rules of the road violation based on an instance of the originating ITS-S or a perceived object violating a traffic regulation.
Instead, Kim, whose invention pertains to an advanced driver assistance system for guiding a driver teaches in at least P [0296]: “driving situation information needed to be recognized by an occupant may be information about safety or violation of a traffic law by the vehicle 100 among information related to circumstances surrounding the vehicle 100”, wherein the traffic law violation is a road violation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety message and trigger condition of Maschue, Crego, and Morvan with the traffic law violation detection of Kim in order to prevent a dangerous situation that arises as a result of a violated safety metric like a traffic law violation (Kim P [0316]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschue in view of Crego and Morvan, and further in view of Sathyanarayana et al., hereinafter Sathyanarayana (Document ID: US 9928432 B1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 1, but Maschue, Crego, and Morvan do not explicitly teach that
the safety metric is a driving behavioral competency value based on the originating ITS-S or a perceived object having correctly executed a specific behavioral competency action.
Instead, Sathyanarayana, whose invention pertains to a method for near-collision detection teaches in at least Col 8, Line 62 the evaluation of driving behavior and driving proficiency as a parameter value for generating a risk map.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety message and trigger condition of Maschue, Crego, and Morvan with the driving behavior and driving proficiency of Sathyanarayana in order to generate a risk map that aids in determining a collision risk for a region proximal to a vehicle (Sathyanarayana Col 4 Line 39).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschue in view of Crego and Morvan, and further in view of Gyllenhammar et al., hereinafter Gyllenhammar (Document ID: US 20220350338 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Maschue teaches the originating ITS-S of claim 1, but Maschue, Crego, and Morvan do not explicitly teach that
the safety metric is a post encroachment time (PET), wherein the PET is a time from an end of encroachment of the originating ITS-S to a beginning of an encroachment of a perceived object to a potential point of a conflict between the originating ITS-S and the perceived object.
Instead, Gyllenhammar, whose invention pertains to deriving a cost function for automated driving systems, teaches in P [0068] the use of Post Encroachment Time (PET) “to define the collision threat measure”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety message and trigger condition of Maschue, Crego, and Morvan with the post encroachment time for reviewing vehicles entering the same area of Gyllenhammar in order to establish a collision threat measure as a safety metric for a vehicle (Gyllenhammar P [0067]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Additional art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20220223033 A1
Invention pertains to generating and transmitting misbehavior reports as needed.
Document ID: US 20220227360 A1
Invention pertains to a collision avoidance system for detecting danger before an accident occurs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656