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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 5/16/2025. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11, and 13-14 are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 will be examined.
This Final Office action is in response to “Amended Claims” dated 03/13/2025, an IDS filed 5/16/2025, and “Appeal Brief,” filed 02/02/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments within the “Appeal Brief,” filed 02/02/2026 with respect to claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s) KUTILA et al., US 20190143967, and previously disclosed prior art reference(s) KULKARNI, BIALA, BAGON, and LEUNG. The grounds for rejection in view of amended claims are provided below.
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 1-2, 5, 11, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KULKARNI et al., US 20230324543, herein further known as Kulkarni, in view of BIALA et al., US 20220017115, herein further known as Biala, further KUTILA et al., US 20190143967, herein further known as Kutila.
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni discloses a method comprising: obtaining, using at least one processor (¶ [0004]), from at least one sensor of a vehicle (¶¶ [0026-0031]), first data (¶ [0040], static object) associated with a first area (¶ [0040], vehicle 110 travels within a geographical region, gathering information (i.e. first data/area, second data/area) that is external to the vehicle (¶¶ [0036], [0040], see also FIG. 1); transmitting, using the at least one processor (¶¶ [0002-0006]), to an additional vehicle that is external to the vehicle (¶¶ [0042], many vehicles, [0085], vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)), controlling (¶ [0046], enabling autonomous driving, see also FIG. 2) using the at least one processor (¶ [0004]), the vehicle along a trajectory within a physical space (¶¶ [0050], [0075-0077], [0103]) based on the aggregating (¶¶ [0026-0031]) of the second data with the first data (¶ [0040-0046]).
However, Kulkarni does not explicitly state converting from a first format to a second format, and transmitting, using the at least one processor, the first data in the second format and a query requesting second data in a second area beyond a visual range of the vehicle; receiving, using the at least one processor, the second data converted to the second format responsive to the query.
Biala teaches converting from a first format to a second format (¶ [0104], OOI is mapped (i.e., converted or translated)…) (¶ [0126], for each OOI, converting the 2D location data from the image to 3D global coordinates), and transmitting the first data in the second format (¶¶ [0058], [0134]) and a query (¶ [0107], in response to receiving a query from the vehicle, provide APD information) (¶ [0144], see APD fusion engine).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Kulkarni converting from a first format to a second format, and transmitting, using the at least one processor, the first data in the second format and a query as taught by Biala. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kulkarni, and Biala.
One would be motivated to modify Kulkarni in view of Biala for the reasons stated in Biala paragraph [0002], [0038], [0067], more robust systems and methods to perceive activities of dynamic objects (such as cars, buses, or large trucks) despite some “blind spots” or hidden or occluded objects which is achieved by using improved computing architecture and more cost-effective sensors to improve routing or decision making by the vehicle.
Furthermore, Kutila teaches requesting second data (¶¶ [0015], [0056-0057], [0062], [0083-0092], first vehicle requests from the second vehicle a proper subset of information in a second area beyond a visual range of the vehicle (¶¶ [0054-0055], sector in front of the host vehicle requires additional information, unobserved by vehicle 1's sensors (635), [0060-0062], specific sector in front of the host vehicle due to obstruction, other nearby vehicles for the sector which the host vehicle's sensor system is not able to observe, [0066-0070], MapDataSector (the objects detected in the specific area)); receiving the second data responsive to the query(¶¶ [0015], [0056-0057], receives from the second vehicle information regarding sensors of the second vehicle, [0062], data requested and received from nearby vehicles, [0082-0092], receiving from the second vehicle information regarding sensors of the second vehicle).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Kulkarni the requesting second data in a second area beyond a visual range of the vehicle; receiving the second data responsive to the query, as taught by Kutila.
One would be motivated to modify Kulkarni in view of Kutila for the reasons stated in Kutila paragraph [0004],more robust method and system to improve safety by avoiding accidents, and minimize the number of false alarms which may result in disturbing the traffic flow.
Furthermore, Kutila teaches obtaining, using at least one processor (¶ [0026]), from at least one sensor of a vehicle (¶¶ [0043], vehicle sensor systems covering the regions of detection/illumination lines 207a, coverage lines 207b, see also FIGS. 2A, 2B), first data associated with a first area that is external to the vehicle (¶¶ [0056], first-vehicle-sensor data set, second vehicle is obstructing (wherein the second vehicle data is contained in the first-vehicle-sensor data set); transmitting (¶¶ [0097-0098], transmitting and receiving wireless signals, see also FIG. 7), using the at least one processor (¶ [0026]), to an additional vehicle that is external to the vehicle (¶¶ [0015], [0057], [0083-0085], [0088-0090], first vehicle sends to the second vehicle, [0083], vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)), controlling (¶¶ [0008-0012], [0027-0029], [0031], [0052-0053], [0083], autonomous vehicles/semi-autonomous vehicles control, see also claim 5) using the at least one processor (¶ [0026]), the vehicle along a trajectory within a physical space (¶ [0043], vehicle 205 may be traveling on a road, see also FIGS. 2A, 2B) based the second data with the first data (¶¶ [0056-0057], [0083-0092] vehicle 1 uses subset of sensor data for the obstructed at least portion of the view of the first-vehicle sensor from the second vehicle, accordingly updating the first-vehicle-sensor data set with the received proper subset of sensor data from the second vehicle, see also claims 1-3).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Kulkarni the obtaining, using at least one processor, from at least one sensor of a vehicle, first data associated with a first area that is external to the vehicle; transmitting, using the at least one processor, to an additional vehicle that is external to the vehicle using the at least one processor, the vehicle along a trajectory within a physical space based the second data with the first data as taught by Kutila.
One would be motivated to modify Kulkarni in view of Kutila for the reasons stated in Kutila paragraph [0004],more robust method and system to improve safety by avoiding accidents, and minimize the number of false alarms which may result in disturbing the traffic flow.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, and Kutila, disclose all elements of claim 1.
Kulkarni discloses further generating a graphical representation (¶ [0028], HD map generation) for use by a display of the vehicle (¶¶ [0028], used (or “consumed”) by the vehicles, [0039], shown on a display of the vehicle (e.g., to a driver or other user for navigation or other purposes)) based on the second data that is aggregated (¶¶ [0026-0031]) with the first data (¶¶ [0050], [0075-0077], [0103]), the graphical representation (¶ [0028], HD map generation) comprising a first object (¶ [0040], static object) derived from data associated with the first area and a second object derived from the second data specific to the second area (¶ [0040], static object, see also FIG. 1), wherein the graphical representation is a digital map (¶ [0028], HD map generation) that is generated based on the first area and the second area (¶ [0040], vehicle 110 travels within a geographical region, gathering information (i.e. first data/area to second data/area).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, and Kutila, disclose all elements of claim 1.
Kulkarni discloses further the at least one sensor (¶¶ [0026-0031]) is a camera (¶¶ [0010], [0029], [0036]); and wherein the obtaining of the first data associated with the first area that is external to the vehicle (¶ [0036], to gather information regarding the vehicle's surroundings) comprises capturing, by the camera (¶¶ [0010], [0029], [0036]), at least one image within a proximity of the vehicle in the first area that is external to the vehicle (¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 11, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The system disclosed in claim 11 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 5. The system disclosed in claim 15 can clearly perform the methods of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claims 3-4, and 13-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, and Kutila, further in view of BAGON, et al., US 20240255289, herein further known as Bagon.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, and Kutila, disclose all elements of claim 2.
Kulkarni discloses outputting the digital map (¶ [0028], HD map generation) and the first object and the second object (¶ [0040], static object, dynamic object).
However, Kulkarni does not explicitly state outputting the graphical representation on the display, the outputting to include the object.
Bagon teaches outputting the graphical representation on the display, the outputting to include the object (¶ [0079], road objects and features, etc. within a user's FoV).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kulkarni by including outputting the graphical representation on the display, the outputting to include the object as taught by Bagon. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kulkarni, and Bagon.
One would be motivated to modify Kulkarni in view of Bagon for the reasons stated in Bagon paragraphs [0003], and [0016], a more robust system wherein the in-vehicle displays consider a driver's specific field of view (FoV), and more robust system that may be implemented by a standard vehicle without necessarily utilizing autonomous or semi-autonomous control. Therefore, the more robust system can be utilized within all vehicles for integration with the safety system resulting in safer vehicle operation.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, Kutila, and Bagon, disclose all elements of claim 3.
Kulkarni discloses further receiving third data (¶ [0047], traffic sign detections, poles, guard rails, road boundaries, lane markers, etc.) from the second area (¶ [0040], vehicle 110 travels within a geographical region, gathering information (i.e. first data/area to second data/area); and to include a third object that is derived from the third data (¶ [0047]).
However, Kulkarni does not explicitly state updating the graphical representation.
Bagon teaches updating the graphical representation (¶ [0063], occupant's FoV are also updated to reflect new features and objects).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kulkarni by including updating the graphical representation as taught by Bagon. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kulkarni, and Bagon.
One would be motivated to modify Kulkarni in view of Bagon for the reasons stated in Bagon paragraphs [0003], and [0016], a more robust system wherein the in-vehicle displays consider a driver's specific field of view (FoV), and more robust system that may be implemented by a standard vehicle without necessarily utilizing autonomous or semi-autonomous control. Therefore, the more robust system can be utilized within all vehicles for integration with the safety system resulting in safer vehicle operation.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claims 2 and 3. The system disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform the methods of claims 2 and 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 2 and 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 4. The system disclosed in claim 14 can clearly perform the methods of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claims 6-10, and 16-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, and Kutila, further in view of LEUNG et al., US 20220132095, herein further known as Leung.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, and Kutila, disclose all elements of claim 1.
However, Kulkarni does not explicitly state the first format corresponds at least one of a RAW format (¶ [0028], publish sensor data in raw or processed form) , JPEG format, or PNG format.
Leung teaches the first format corresponds at least one of a RAW format, JPEG format, or PNG format (¶¶ [0046], [0051], [0054]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kulkarni by including the first format corresponds at least one of a RAW format, JPEG format, or PNG format as taught by Leung. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kulkarni, and Leung.
One would be motivated to modify Kulkarni in view of Leung for the reasons stated in Leung paragraph [0029], a more robust system and method with techniques which are easy to implement, quick to parse, and extend existing image formats across various operating systems used in cameras, including mobile device cameras and enable storing device-related metadata, e.g., depth information, imaging model of a device camera along with any number of secondary images. In addition these stored images may be utilized by any image viewing or editing application.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, and Kutila, disclose all elements of claim 1.
However, Kulkarni does not explicitly state the second format corresponds to float values.
Leung teaches the second format corresponds to float values (¶¶ [0062], [0070]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kulkarni by including the second format corresponds to float values as taught by the second format corresponds to float values as taught by Leung. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kulkarni, and Leung.
One would be motivated to modify Kulkarni in view of Leung for the reasons stated in Leung paragraph [0029], a more robust system and method with techniques which are easy to implement, quick to parse, and extend existing image formats across various operating systems used in cameras, including mobile device cameras and enable storing device-related metadata, e.g., depth information, imaging model of a device camera along with any number of secondary images. In addition these stored images may be utilized by any image viewing or editing application.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, Kutila, and Leung, discloses all elements of claim 7.
obtaining of the first data associated with the first area that is external to the vehicle (¶ [0036], to gather information regarding the vehicle's surroundings) comprises: capturing, by a camera (¶¶ [0010], [0029], [0036]), at least one image within a proximity of the vehicle (¶ [0036]) in the first area that is external to the vehicle (¶ [0036], to gather information regarding the vehicle's surroundings), wherein the values are representative of characteristics of objects included in the at least one image (¶ [0034]).
However, Kulkarni does not explicitly state float values are representative of characteristics in the at least one image.
Leung teaches float values are representative of characteristics in the at least one image (¶ [0049]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kulkarni by including float values are representative of characteristics in the at least one image as taught by Leung. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kulkarni, and Leung.
One would be motivated to modify Kulkarni in view of Leung for the reasons stated in Leung paragraph [0029], a more robust system and method with techniques which are easy to implement, quick to parse, and extend existing image formats across various operating systems used in cameras, including mobile device cameras and enable storing device-related metadata, e.g., depth information, imaging model of a device camera along with any number of secondary images. In addition these stored images may be utilized by any image viewing or editing application.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, Kutila, and Leung, disclose all elements of claim 8.
Kulkarni discloses further the objects include one or more of pedestrians (¶ [0040]), traffic lights (¶ [0040]), additional vehicles (¶ [0040]), and constructions signs (¶¶ [0040], [0047], traffic sign detections).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, Kutila, and Leung, disclose all elements of claim 8.
Kulkarni discloses further characteristics of the objects comprise one or more of a width, length, height, velocity (see clause 2, clause 18, and clause 33) acceleration, orientation, classification, and coordinates (¶ [0051], coordinate list) associated with the objects (¶ [0051], objects 130, 140).
Regarding claim 16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 6. The system disclosed in claim 16 can clearly perform the methods of claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 17, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 7. The system disclosed in claim 17 can clearly perform the methods of claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 8. The system disclosed in claim 18 can clearly perform the methods of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 9. The system disclosed in claim 19 can clearly perform the methods of claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 10. The system disclosed in claim 20 can clearly perform the methods of claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, and Kutila, further in view of OKUYAMA, US 20180209795, herein further known as Okuyama.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kulkarni, Biala, and Kutila, disclose all elements of claim 11 above.
Kulkarni discloses the query (¶¶ [0043], triggering event (i.e. query), [0049-0050], trigger) associated with the second area is a request for a mapping (¶¶ [0027-0029], [0031]) of an environment (¶ [0044], representation of the environment) associated with the second area and the first area is at a first distance relative to the vehicle (¶ [0043] threshold distance of a boundary) and the second area is at a second distance relative to the vehicle (¶ [0043] threshold distance of a boundary),
However, Kulkarni does not explicitly state the second distance is larger than the first distance.
Okuyama teaches the second distance is larger than the first distance (claims 1 and 8).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kulkarni by including the second distance is larger than the first distance as taught by Okuyama. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kulkarni, and Okuyama.
One would be motivated to modify Kulkarni in view of Okuyama for the reasons stated in Okuyama paragraph [0003], a more robust system and method which is able to correct the current position of a vehicle in situations where it is difficult to detect an intersection, such as when the vehicle is travelling on an expressway.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record attached PTO 892 form, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as described below. Prior art (non-paten literature) V2VNet: Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication for Joint Perception and Prediction, WANG, TSUN-HSUAN, et al. discloses vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication to improve the perception and motion forecasting performance of self-driving vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights