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 .
Status of the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 02/24/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5 – 11, 13, 20 – 23, 25 - 30 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 5, 11, 20 – 21, & 29 have been amended, claim 24 has been cancelled, and claim 30 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5 – 11, 13, 20-23, 25 - 30 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “wherein the pairing data include the second object information”. The word “include” should be “includes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
5. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 16 - 27 filed on 02/24/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
6. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the argument that claim 7 is definite is persuasive. Therefore, claim 7 is no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
7. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. The argument that Zeng is from 2009 so therefore the technology wouldn’t be obvious is unpersuasive. We are not saying the applicant’s invention was obvious in 2009. We are saying at the time the applicant submitted their application, it would have been obvious for someone to take the 2009 art and something else and combine them into something to what the applicant is claiming. Also, Zeng wasn’t used to teach a velocity, size, direction, or type. Park was used for that claim limitation.
The argument that claim 1 is not taught by Park is not persuasive. Park does teach capturing first object information at a second time point and capturing second object information at a first time point and a second time point [0090] – [0096]. Park discloses car1 capturing a first image of first object information. Car2 captures a second image of second object information. Park is explicit in saying that when an image is captured, so is a time point and a location [0087]. Any other specific step that involves a more abstract level of detail that isn’t being defined in the claim set would not be taken into account when finding prior art. Therefore, the argument that the claimed invention actively calculates an updated location for that object at a second time point is moot.
The argument that claim 9 is not taught by Zeng is not persuasive. Zeng mentions a communication region which implies that a region that is made for communication to occur between vehicles. If vehicles aren’t within this communication region, then a pairing can’t be made. Therefore, this establishes that an area and distance between two vehicles has to be under a specific distance for this communication link to be established. This area and distance constitutes as a pairing region by definition.
The argument that claim 25 doesn’t teach pairing types of a donee type, donor type, and pairing type that is both the donor and donee type is not persuasive. Zeng does teach a donee type, donor type, and a pairing type that is both donor and donee. When a vehicle (10) communicates with remote vehicle (24) through V2V messaging, remote vehicle (24) is now considered the donee type since it is receiving pairing data and information from vehicle (10). That is considered a donee type and vehicle (10) is considered the donor type. Remote vehicle (24) could also sent pairing data and information back to vehicle (10) which now makes this link a donor and donee type. This is what the definition is for a donor and donee type. The arguments that pertain to the specific technical configurations when it comes to optimizing system resources and reduce latency are moot because these technical configurations are not in the claimset. Therefore, Zeng teaches claim 25.
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 1 is 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 currently states “wherein the second object information from the pairing data includes information on the second object identified for a first time point, and updated information on the second object for a second time point is derived based on the second object information from the pairing data,”. This claim recites multiple steps and is unclear whether this is one full step or should be separated into two limitations. First step being “wherein the second object information from the pairing data includes information on the second object identified for a first time point,…” and the second step being “…and updated information on the second object for a second time point is derived based on the second object information from the pairing data,”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
12. Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 – 9, 11, 13, 20, 25 & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100198513A1 (hereinafter, “Zeng”), and further in view of US20220036098A1 (hereinafter, “Cheng”), and further in view of US20200364471A1 (hereinafter, “Park”).
13. Regarding claims 1, 11, & 20, Zeng teaches a method for controlling a vehicle based on an object identification, the method comprising [0005]: Zeng teaches on vehicles using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication. These vehicles all have object detecting sensors and alert the host vehicle of objects not within view of host vehicle. The host vehicle now that it is aware of objects not within view will take preemptive actions accordingly which is a form of control to prevent any unsafe incidents.
obtaining sensor data based on one or more sensors positioned on a vehicle ([0017] Fig. 2); Zeng teaches on implementing sensors onto the vehicle. The vehicle obtains sensor data based on the sensors shown in figure 2.
14. Zeng further does not explicitly teach deriving first object information by performing object identification based on a result of applying the sensor data to a machine learning model;
However, Cheng in the same field of endeavor, teaches deriving first object information by performing object identification based on a result of applying the sensor data to a machine learning model [0030]; Cheng teaches on an SSDT module(s) (130) that can analyze first environment data for detected objects. This SSDT module(s) (130) can then compare images in the first environment data with the data summary (162) using a variety of different methods with machine learning being one of those methods.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application and with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Zeng with the teachings of Cheng to determine an object quicker and preserve that data for the next time that object gets identified.
15. Zeng further teaches receiving pairing data through a network, the pairing data including second object information obtained from an external vehicle or an external device ([0020], [0022] Fig. 1); Second object information being information that is obtained from pairing data and is different from the first object information. Zeng teaches on V2V communication amongst vehicles. Remote vehicle (24) may be in communication with vehicle (10) as well as remote vehicle (30). Remote vehicle (10) has a field of view (FOV) (25) where its object detection sensors can sense. The information that the remote vehicle (10) can sense in its FOV (25) is considered first object information. Objects that are detected in the FOV of remote vehicles (30) and (24) can be shared with remote vehicle (10). The sharing of this information with remote vehicle (10) is the pairing data. Therefore, objects that are detected by remote vehicles (30) and (24) are objects that the remote vehicle (10) has not detected and are different from the objects the remote vehicle (10) has detected which is considered second object information.
deriving updated object information based on the first object information and the second object information; and ([0023] Fig. 3) Zeng teaches on a sensor object data map (44) and a V2V object data map (46). The sensor object data map (44) is where sensor data from the host vehicle is located. The V2V object data map (46) is where object data from external vehicles is located. Each respective map is updated with object information in response to when that specific type of object data is detected either from the host vehicle or external vehicles.
adjusting a control parameter of the vehicle to control the vehicle based on the updated object information [0016] – [0017], [0032], Due to the fact that V2V is apparent here in Zeng and is used to transmit wireless messages pertaining to information of detected objects amongst vehicles that may be out of range to detect certain objects, it is inherent that a vehicle will take this information into account and adjust its driving accordingly (adjusting a control parameter) to adapt to that current environmental condition in regards to the detected object whether that object is detected by the vehicle itself or is fed into the host vehicle from another vehicle that has detected said object that is currently undetectable from the host vehicle.
wherein the first object information includes information on a first object and the second object information includes information on a second object ([0020] Fig. 1), For examining purposes, we can label first object information as objects detected by the remote vehicle (10) from its object detection sensors in its FOV (25). Second object information can be labeled as the objects contained in the V2V object data map. This V2V object data map would have to contain object information detected by other vehicles in order to correctly map them out in the map.
wherein the first object is identified from the sensor data obtained from the one or more sensors positioned on the vehicle and the second object is derived from the pairing data, and ([0020], [0022] Fig. 1); Second object information being information that is obtained from pairing data and is different from the first object information. Zeng teaches on V2V communication amongst vehicles. Remote vehicle (24) may be in communication with vehicle (10) as well as remote vehicle (30). Remote vehicle (10) has a field of view (FOV) (25) where its object detection sensors can sense. The information that the remote vehicle (10) can sense in its FOV (25) is considered first object information. Objects that are detected in the FOV of remote vehicles (30) and (24) can be shared with remote vehicle (10). The sharing of this information with remote vehicle (10) is the pairing data. Therefore, objects that are detected by remote vehicles (30) and (24) are objects that the remote vehicle (10) has not detected/identified and are different from the objects the remote vehicle (10) has detected are going to be considered second object information.
wherein the second object is different from the first object ([0020], [0022] Fig. 1). The information that the remote vehicle (10) can sense in its FOV (25) is considered first object information. Objects that are detected in the FOV of remote vehicles (30) and (24) can be shared with remote vehicle (10). The sharing of this information with remote vehicle (10) is the pairing data. Therefore, objects that are detected by remote vehicles (30) and (24) are objects that the remote vehicle (10) has not detected/identified and are different from the objects the remote vehicle (10) has detected are going to be considered second object information.
16. Zeng does not explicitly teach wherein the second object information from the pairing data includes information on the second object identified for a first time point, and updated information on the second object for a second time point is derived based on the second object information from the pairing data
However, Park in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second object information from the pairing data includes information on the second object identified for a first time point, and updated information on the second object for a second time point is derived based on the second object information from the pairing data ([0016], [0093] – [0094] Fig. 5), Park teaches on taking images from different vehicles or the same objects. The second object’s first image could have been taken by the first vehicle and the second image of the second object could have been taken by the second vehicle in which both images contain that second object’s first and second time points and locations. When comparing both images together, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the first object’s second time point in the second image and the second object’s first time point in the first image be updated in order to do a comparison of the two images together using such information.
wherein the second object information includes information on a location of the second object and information on at least one of a velocity, a size, a direction, or a type of the second object ([0132] – [0135] Fig. 11), Park teaches on object recognition (type of the second object) using a data recognition model. The second object can be identified by a recognition rate determining whether it is a human. Once a recognition rate has been identified for the image consisting of a human or another object (type), that second object information will now contain that recognition rate to determine the type of second object.
wherein the first object information includes information on the first object identified for the second time point,
and wherein the updated object information includes information on the first object for the second time point and the updated information on the second object for the second timepoint ([0016], [0093] – [0094] Fig. 5). Park teaches on taking images from different vehicles or the same objects. A vehicle can take an image of a first object at a first time point and location while another vehicle can also take an image of that first object which would be a second image at a different time point and location. The other vehicle taking the second image can so happen to take an image that contains that first object at that second time point and location which now has a second time point for that first object information which means that the first object information second image time point has now been updated to reflect the information on that second image when comparing images together. Vice versa for the second object information. The second object’s first image could have been taken by the first vehicle and the second image of the second object could have been taken by the second vehicle in which both images contain that second object’s first and second time points and locations. When comparing both images together, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the first object’s second time point in the second image and the second object’s first time point in the first image be updated in order to do a comparison of the two images together using such information.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application and with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Zeng with the teachings of Park to gather extra information in regards to positional, speed, and type related data.
17. Regarding claim 3 & 13, Zeng teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pairing data include the second object information on the second object that is not identified from the sensor data obtained from the one or more sensors positioned on the vehicle [0020], [0022]. Objects that are detected in the FOV of remote vehicles (30) and (24) can be shared with remote vehicle (10). The sharing of this information with remote vehicle (10) is the pairing data. Therefore, objects that are detected by remote vehicles (30) and (24) are objects that the remote vehicle (10) has not detected/identified and are different from the objects the remote vehicle (10) has detected are going to be considered second object information.
18. Regarding claim 7, Zeng teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the deriving the first object information comprises:
identifying n objects based on the first object information derived from the sensor data;
identifying m objects based on the second object information derived from the pairing data; and ([0023] Fig. 3) Zeng teaches on a sensor object data map (44) and a V2V object data map (46). The sensor object data map (44) is where sensor data from the host vehicle is identified and located which we can consider n objects for examining purposes. The V2V object data map (46) is where object data from external vehicles is identified and located which we can consider m objects for examining purposes.
among m objects, updating k objects that are not overlapped with the n objects as valid objects ([0028] – [0029] Fig. 4). Zeng teaches on having n objects, objects that are detected by the host vehicle, being stored in the sensor object data map (44) and having m objects, objects detected from external vehicles that are shared to the host vehicle, being stored in the V2V object data map (46). In figure 4 at step 64, both these maps are fused together to generate a merged observation map. When the fusing of maps occurs, objects that weren’t apart of the n objects in the sensor object data map (44) will now be newly added and updated in the fused map. These newly added objects won’t be overlapped with n objects because these objects would be a part of the V2V object data map (46) which have detected objects out of the FOV of the host vehicle. Therefore, for examining purposes we can treat the newly added objects that aren’t n objects in the fused observation map as k objects as valid objects detected by other vehicles.
19. Regarding claim 8, Zeng teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
deriving pairing vehicle candidates neighboring the vehicle; and ([0015], [0020] – [0021] Fig. 1) Zeng teaches on V2V communication and messaging. This communication system is a dedicated short range communication protocol. Due to this, as long as each vehicle is within a dedicated range amongst other vehicles that have V2V communication, a communication with the neighboring vehicles can be derived and established even when that vehicle is out of the FOV (25).
transmitting pairing request signal to a specific vehicle selected as a pairing vehicle from among the pairing vehicle candidates ([0015] Fig. 1), Inherently when a vehicle is communicating with another neighboring vehicle, a pairing request of some sort would have to occur in order to establish this connection between the host vehicle and the selected vehicle from amongst the pairing candidates. Figure 1 shows that remote vehicle (24) can communicate with remote vehicle (10) and so forth as long as the vehicles have V2V communication and are within a specified range. As long as these vehicles are within a specified range, any vehicle selected can be requested to pair.
wherein at least one of an acceptance signal or the pairing data is received from the pairing vehicle ([0020] – [0022] Fig. 1). Remote vehicle (10) is in V2V communication with remote vehicle (24). Remote vehicle (24) can broadcast object information that it detects ahead of it with remote vehicle (10). The sharing of this information is the pairing data and the remote vehicle (10) is receiving this pairing data from remote vehicle (24). Same can apply to remote vehicle (10) and remote vehicle (30).
20. Regarding claim 9, Zeng teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
checking a location of the pairing vehicle; and [0017] – [0018], [0020] – [0021] Zeng teaches that every vehicle has a GPS receiver (16) which can determine the location of each vehicle. Information pertaining to any object the remote vehicle (24) has detected and has sent over to remote vehicle (10) will contain the remote vehicle’s (24) GPS positioning. Therefore, the remote vehicle (10) will check the location of the remote vehicle (24) due to that information having the GPS location of the remote vehicle (24).
determining a pairing region based on a location of the vehicle and the location of the pairing vehicle [0033], A communication region is established which contains the vehicles within V2V range. This communication region can be considered a pairing region and each vehicle has a GPS receiver (16) which contains the location of every vehicle that is being paired.
wherein the pairing data include the second object information including information on the second object inside the pairing region ([0022], [0029] Fig. 1 & 3). Remote vehicle (30) can detect remote vehicle (28) and relay the detected object (detected object being remote vehicle (28)) to the remote vehicle (10) which is the second object information for the remote vehicle (10) to receive. The information that is relayed to the remove vehicle (10) from the remote vehicle (30) may contain an estimated positioning of the remote vehicle (28) (“…transmits an estimated position of remote vehicle 30 as well…” Seems to be an error in this paragraph [0022] where they mislabeled the remote vehicle as 30 instead of 28) which is inside the pairing region because otherwise, the two vehicles wouldn’t have been able to establish a communication with each other [0022]. Another way the second object information can contain information in regards to the pairing region is when both the sensor object data map (44) and the V2V object data map (64) fuse together to create a merged observation map which contains all the detected objects within the communicating pairing region [0029].
21. Regarding claim 25, Zeng teaches the method of claim 8,
wherein the pairing vehicle candidates include vehicles of a plurality of pairing types, the plurality of pairing types including a first pairing type that is a donee type, a second pairing type that is a donor type, and a third pairing type that is both the donor type and the donee type,
wherein, among the plurality of pairing types, the first pairing type or the third pairing type is assigned as a pairing type of the vehicle, and
wherein, among the plurality of pairing types, the second pairing type or the third pairing type is assigned to the pairing vehicle ([0020], [0022] Fig. 1). Remote vehicle (10) receives object information from remote vehicle (24) which constitutes as both vehicles pairing together to create a pairing type. The remote vehicle (10) receiving the object information from the remote vehicle (24) can be considered the donee type, first pairing type, and the vehicle that sent over the object information can be considered the donor type, second pairing type. Considering that this can be done amongst all vehicles because V2V communication supports all vehicles within range that communicate with each other can both send and receive information/messages, it is inherent that all vehicles that contain this technology can all do both of share (donor type) and receive (done type), are considered the third pairing type. Therefore, vehicles that request information are of the first and third pairing type and vehicles that send over the requested information are of the second and third pairing type.
22. Regarding claim 28, Zeng teaches …the pairing data as an input to the object identification step and to perform the object identification further based on the pairing data by combining feature information or feature map information derived from the sensor data with feature information or feature map information derived from the pairing data ([0020], [0022] – [0023] Fig. 1 & 3). Second object information being information that is obtained from pairing data and is different from the first object information. Zeng teaches on V2V communication amongst vehicles. Remote vehicle (24) may be in communication with vehicle (10) as well as remote vehicle (30). Remote vehicle (10) has a field of view (FOV) (25) where its object detection sensors can sense. The information that the remote vehicle (10) can sense in its FOV (25) is considered first object information. Objects that are detected in the FOV of remote vehicles (30) and (24) can be shared with remote vehicle (10). The sharing of this information with remote vehicle (10) is the pairing data [0020], [0022]. Therefore, objects that are detected by remote vehicles (30) and (24) are objects that the remote vehicle (10) has not detected and are different from the objects the remote vehicle (10) has detected which is considered second object information. Also, Zeng teaches combining both sensor object data map (44) and V2V object data map (46) into sensor and sensor and wireless module (42). Sensor object data map (44) data being information from sensors located on the vehicle and V2V object data map (46) being information from other vehicles that was received (pairing data) ([0023] Fig. 3).
Zeng does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the machine learning model that performs the object identification is configured to receive…
However, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the machine learning model that performs the object identification is configured to receive… [0030]; Cheng teaches on an SSDT module(s) (130) that can analyze first environment data for detected objects. This SSDT module(s) (130) can then compare images in the first environment data with the data summary (162) using a variety of different methods with artificial, computational intelligence algorithms, or machine learning methods. Therefore, the SSDT module(s) (130) which uses a machine learning model is used for object identification.
Zeng and Cheng are analogous art because Zeng teaches V2v communication amongst vehicles on the road with those vehicles being able to share FOV data of objects detected with other vehicles on the road which is considered the pairing data as well as being able to combine data of objects from what the ego vehicle has detected with data of objects from the other vehicles detection while Cheng teaches performing object identification using an SSDT module(s) that uses a machine learning model. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to combine Zeng and Cheng because both are directed towards improving vehicle perception and object detection accuracy in dynamic driving environments. The combination would predictably enhance the reliability and usefulness of shared V2V object information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Cheng, to modify the teachings of Zeng to include the teachings of Cheng to improve object classification accuracy and enhance cooperative perception amongst all the vehicles.
23. Claim(s) 5 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100198513A1 (hereinafter, “Zeng”), and further in view of US20220036098A1 (hereinafter, “Cheng”), and further in view of US20200364471A1 (hereinafter, “Park”), and further in view of US20230121125A1 (hereinafter, “Coupvent Des Graviers”).
24. Regarding claims 5 & 15, Zeng as modified by Cheng does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1,
wherein location information of the second object at the second time point is derived based on
(i) at least one of a location, velocity or acceleration of the second object at a first time point and
(ii) a transmission delay time between a second time point the second timepoint and the first time point, and
wherein the second time point for the updated information on the second object is derived based on the first time point and the transmission delay time.
However, Coupvent Des Graviers in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein location information of the second object at the second time point is derived based on
(i) at least one of a location, velocity or acceleration of the second object at a first time point and
(ii) a delay time between a second time point the second timepoint and the first time point, and
wherein the second time point for the updated information on the second object is derived based on the first time point and the delay time ([0043], [0073] Fig 3). Coupvent Des Graviers teaches on a transmission delay time between photos called a time difference. A vehicle with a camera will take multiple images with each image being assigned a timestamp provided by the camera. Figure 3 has a step (308) where a time difference is determined between the two images. This time difference is considered the transmission delay time. If this time difference is equal to or greater than a retiming period (retiming period being a retiming pulse that is different from the base period of the modulated signal), a reference date is assigned to said images which is dependent on the time information of the reference signal. Therefore, the second time point is deduced based on using the first images time point from determining a time difference, time difference being considered the transmission delay time, between the two images. Since the purpose of Coupvent Des Graviers is to exploit data from various sensors on a vehicle, objects that are within the taken images that Coupvent Des Graviers does can be derived using the method Coupvent Des Graviers teaches [0003]. Coupvent Des Graviers also teaches on incorporating a global positioning system (GPS) (104) which can be used to derive location information on images taken [0063] – [0064]. The computer (108) which houses the global positioning system is connected to each of the cameras (101).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application and with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Zeng as modified by Cheng with the teachings of Coupvent Des Graviers to be able to derive a second time point of a second object in order to predict where it will end up in order to plan a route according to that prediction.
25. Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100198513A1 (hereinafter, “Zeng”), and further in view of US20220036098A1 (hereinafter, “Cheng”), and further in view of US20200364471A1 (hereinafter, “Park”), and further in view of NPL The Physics Hypertextbook (hereinafter, “Elert”).
26. Regarding claim 6, Zeng as modified by Cheng does not explicitly teach the method of claim 5, wherein the location information of the second object is updated based on the following equation,
PNG
media_image1.png
97
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where
(Px(t), Py(t)) represents x, y components of the location of the second object at the first time point t,
(vx(t), vy(t)) represents x, y components of the velocity of the second object at thefirst time point t,
(ax(t), ay(t)) represents x, y components of the acceleration of the second object atthe first time point t,
(Px(t+dt), Py(t+dt)) represents x, y components of the location of the second objectat the second time point, and
dt represents the delay time.
However, Elert in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the location information of the second object is updated based on,
PNG
media_image1.png
97
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where
(Px(t), Py(t)) represents x, y components of the location of the second object at the first time point t,
(vx(t), vy(t)) represents x, y components of the velocity of the second object at thefirst time point t,
(ax(t), ay(t)) represents x, y components of the acceleration of the second object atthe first time point t,
(Px(t+dt), Py(t+dt)) represents x, y components of the location of the second objectat the second time point, and
dt represents the delay time (Pg. 6 - 7). The Physics Hypertextbook teaches a known physics relationship on calculating velocity – position based off of time and acceleration.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing and with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Zeng as modified by Cheng and Park with the teachings of Elert, to create a more accurate predicted path of the 2nd object location based on initial parameters.
27. Claim(s) 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100198513A1 (hereinafter, “Zeng”), and further in view of US20220036098A1 (hereinafter, “Cheng”), and further in view of US20200364471A1 (hereinafter, “Park”), and further in view of US20130279695A1 (hereinafter, “Rubin”).
28. Regarding claim 10, Zeng teaches the method of claim 9,
wherein a feature map is generated based on ([0029] Fig. 3 – 4) Zeng teaches on a feature map that contains data of detected objects and vehicles neighboring the host vehicle. Both maps from the host vehicle and external vehicles are fused together to create the merged object observation map.
(i) the first object of the first object information derived from the sensor data and ([0023] Fig. 3) The sensor object data map (44) is sensor object data that is received from sensors on the host vehicle.
(ii) the second object of the second object information derived from the pairing data, ([0023] Fig. 3) The V2V object data map (46) is object data that is received from external vehicles.
wherein the adjusting the control parameter is performed based on the feature map [0030] – [0032]. Control parameters will be adjusted in accordance with the now fused merged object observation map. A Kalman filter is implemented which keeps track of the remote vehicles surrounding the host vehicle. The vehicle speeds, yaw rates, and orientation of are all tracked for all vehicles. Since all these positions of the vehicles are tracked relative to the host vehicle, it is obvious that any change in positioning or speed of these other vehicles would then cause the host vehicle to adapt and have a control parameter such as braking, accelerating, or avoiding be adjusted.
Zeng as modified by Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein a size of the pairing region is determined based on a distance between the vehicle and the pairing vehicle, and
Rubin teaches wherein a size of the pairing region is determined based on a distance between the vehicle and the pairing vehicle, and [0183] Rubin teaches a “first circle range” and a “second circle range” which constitutes as pairing regions because that is the range that is designated as pairing regions relative to how close that pairing vehicle is to the vehicle that is being paired with. A “first circle range” being two vehicles in sight or in range of trying to transmit to each other. A “second circle range” being two vehicles that are closest together within the same lane.
The combination of Zeng and Rubin are analogous art because Zeng teaches on generating a fused feature map based on sensor data from the host vehicle which will contain first object information and external information from other vehicles or devices which will contain second object information while Rubin teaches on two different pairing regions with one pairing region being closer than the other and dependent on how close the two vehicles communicating are to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Rubin to modify the teachings of the combination of Zeng as modified by Cheng with Rubin to generate a map which has all objects that have been detected from the plethora of vehicles in order to safely navigate around and be able to identify certain obstacles and hazards with said generated map.
29. Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100198513A1 (hereinafter, “Zeng”), and further in view of US20220036098A1 (hereinafter, “Cheng”), and further in view of US20200364471A1 (hereinafter, “Park”), and further in view of US11364910B1 (hereinafter, “Schmitt”).
30. Regarding claim 21, Zeng as modified by Cheng does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a sound;
detecting at least one of sounding location or sounding direction related to the sound based on sound localization; and
identifying a sounding object based on identified objects and at least one of the sounding location and the sounding direction,
wherein the adjusting the control parameter is further based on the sounding object information including information on at least one of the sound and the sounding object.
However, Schmitt in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a sound ([Col. 14] Lines 19 - 30); Siren Sound Detection and Localization (501) identifies a sound.
detecting at least one of sounding location or sounding direction related to the sound based on sound localization; and ([Col 14.] Lines 26 – 30) The location of the detected sound is estimated which is based on sound localization, Siren Sound Detection and Localization (501).
identifying a sounding object based on identified objects and at least one of the sounding location and the sounding direction, ([Col 14.] Lines 43 – 56 Fig. 5) All pipelines in Figure 5 (501 – 503) which contain identified sounds and objects are all carried over into the Fusion Module (504) which identifies all sounds, flashing lights, and objects that were detected into one combined module and determines what sounding object is making the noise and its location.
wherein the adjusting the control parameter is further based on the sounding object information including information on at least one of the sound and the sounding object ([Col 14.] Lines 43 – 56). Based on the matched location of the emergency vehicle, the perception module (402), planner (404), and/or the controller module (406) of the autonomous vehicle will plan a route or trajectory based on the prediction of other agent behaviors which entails controlling the steering, acceleration, braking, etc.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application and with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Zeng as modified by Cheng with the teachings of Schmitt to more accurately detect sound based objects for safety concerns in order to adjust the autonomous vehicle accordingly when near emergency vehicles, honking vehicles, and so forth.
31. Claim(s) 22 & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100198513A1 (hereinafter, “Zeng”), and further in view of US20220036098A1 (hereinafter, “Cheng”), and further in view of US20200364471A1 (hereinafter, “Park”), and further in view of US8676427B1 (hereinafter, “Ferguson”).
32. Regarding claim 22, Zeng as modified by Cheng does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the control parameter includes one of a first control parameter and a second control parameter, the first control parameter derived for a case that the sounding direction is opposite from a direction of the vehicle, the second control parameter derived for a case that the sounding direction coincides with the direction of the vehicle, and
the first control parameter is different from the second control parameter.
However, Ferguson in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the control parameter includes one of a first control parameter and a second control parameter, the first control parameter derived for a case that the sounding direction is opposite from a direction of the vehicle, the second control parameter derived for a case that the sounding direction coincides with the direction of the vehicle, and
the first control parameter is different from the second control parameter ([Col. 11] Lines 35 - 43 Fig. 3 - 4). Ferguson teaches on determining sound directional data meaning that the autonomous vehicle (AV) can detect sound using microphones (212 & 214 Fig. 2) ([Col. 10] Lines 46 – 60) from both the back and the front direction relative to the AV. Figure 3 demonstrates a vehicle (306) ahead of an emergency vehicle (308) moving out of the way in order for the emergency vehicle (308) to pass up on ahead due the AV detecting the sound the emergency vehicle (308) was making ([Col. 10] Lines 33 – 45). The AV is capable of detecting sound that is coinciding with the vehicle because the vehicle has microphones located on the front and back which can pick up audio in all directions and determine the direction of the sound data source and operate the AV accordingly as per figure 3. Ferguson doesn’t explicitly use the terms “first control parameter” or “second control parameter” but Ferguson does pick up sound data in the opposite direction of the vehicle and in the coinciding direction and can control the vehicle based on the scenario. The control parameters are merely just variables that are designated to specify actions taken by the AV that Ferguson teaches on doing. It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill that if a vehicle was detected by sound and coming from behind the AV that the AV would operate differently which constitutes as the first control parameter being different, such as steering to the side, compared to a scenario where the detected AV is detected by sound coinciding with the AV where the second control parameter can be braking to slow down for an emergency vehicle passing by.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application and with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Zeng as modified by Cheng with the teachings of Ferguson to more effectively differentiate where the sounding direction of the vehicle is coming from and operate the AV accordingly based on the direction.
33. Regarding claim 23, Zeng as modified by Cheng does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the control parameter includes one of a first control parameter and a second control parameter, the first control parameter derived for a case that the sounding location is a front side of the vehicle, the second control parameter derived for a case that the sounding location is a rear side of the vehicle, and
wherein the first control parameter is different from the second control parameter.
However, Ferguson in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the control parameter includes one of a first control parameter and a second control parameter, the first control parameter derived for a case that the sounding location is a front side of the vehicle, the second control parameter derived for a case that the sounding location is a rear side of the vehicle, and
wherein the first control parameter is different from the second control parameter. Ferguson teaches on determining sound directional data meaning that the autonomous vehicle (AV) can detect sound using microphones (212 & 214 Fig. 2) ([Col. 10] Lines 46 – 60) from both the back and the front direction relative to the AV. The AV is capable of detecting sound that is located in the front side and rear side of the vehicle because the vehicle has microphones located on the front and back which can pick up audio in all directions and determine the direction of the sound data source and operate the AV accordingly as per figure 3. Ferguson doesn’t explicitly use the terms “first control parameter” or “second control parameter” but Ferguson does pick up sound data in the front side of the vehicle and in the rear side direction and can control the vehicle based on the scenario. The control parameters are merely just variables that are designated to specify actions taken by the AV that Ferguson teaches on doing. It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill that if a vehicle was detected by sound and coming from behind the AV that the AV would operate differently which constitutes as the first control parameter being different, such as steering to the side, compared to a scenario where the detected AV is detected by sound coinciding with the AV where the second control parameter can be braking to slow down for an emergency vehicle passing by.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application and with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Zeng as modified by Cheng with the teachings of Ferguson to more effectively differentiate where the sounding direction of the vehicle is coming from and operate the AV accordingly based on the direction.
34. Claim(s) 26 - 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100198513A1 (hereinafter, “Zeng”), and further in view of US20220036098A1 (hereinafter, “Cheng”), and further in view of US20200364471A1 (hereinafter, “Park”), and further in view of US20160277601A1 (hereinafter, “Seymour”).
35. Regarding claim 26, Zeng as modified by Cheng does not explicitly teach the method of claim 9
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a front-right side or in a first quadrant of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a right area of the vehicle, a front area of the vehicle, and a front-right area of the vehicle,
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a front-left side or in a second quadrant of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a left area of the vehicle, a front area of the vehicle, and a front-left area of the vehicle,
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a rear-left side or in a third quadrant of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a left area of the vehicle, a rear area of the vehicle, and a rear-left area of the vehicle, and
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a rear-right side or in a fourth quadrant of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a right area of the vehicle, a rear area of the vehicle, and a rear-right area of the vehicle.
However, Seymour in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 9
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a front-right side or in a first quadrant of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a right area of the vehicle, a front area of the vehicle, and a front-right area of the vehicle,
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a front-left side or in a second quadrant of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a left area of the vehicle, a front area of the vehicle, and a front-left area of the vehicle,
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a rear-left side or in a third quadrant of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a left area of the vehicle, a rear area of the vehicle, and a rear-left area of the vehicle, and
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a rear-right side or in a fourth quadrant of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a right area of the vehicle, a rear area of the vehicle, and a rear-right area of the vehicle ([0013] – [0014] Fig. 3). A radio frequency beacon is implemented into vehicles in order to share and communicate image data wirelessly. When a vehicle detects another vehicle and has established a link to each other selectively, those two vehicles are now paired to share image data together. This link between the two vehicles has about a ten-to-twenty-foot range. Figure 3 demonstrates the range and direction of the radio frequency beacon in order to establish a connection with another vehicle and is capable of linking to vehicles omni-directionally based on the signals being emitted. This encases all pairing regions such as front right side in the first quadrant, front left side in the second quadrant, rear left side in the third quadrant, and rear right side in the fourth quadrant.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application and with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Zeng as modified by Cheng with the teachings of Seymour to establish a link to a vehicle in any direction in order to not limit the pairing area of the vehicles to widen the scope of pairing vehicles together to be useful in more situational scenarios.
36. Regarding claim 27, Zeng as modified by Cheng does not explicitly teach the method of claim 9,
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a front side of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a front-right area of the vehicle, a front area of the vehicle, and a front-left area of the vehicle,
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a left side of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a left area of the vehicle, a front-left area of the vehicle, and a rear-left area of the vehicle,
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a rear side of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a rear-left area of the vehicle, a rear area of the vehicle, and a rear- right area of the vehicle, and
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a right side of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a right area of the vehicle, a rear-right area of the vehicle, and a front-right area of the vehicle.
However, Seymour in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 9,
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a front side of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a front-right area of the vehicle, a front area of the vehicle, and a front-left area of the vehicle,
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a left side of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a left area of the vehicle, a front-left area of the vehicle, and a rear-left area of the vehicle,
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a rear side of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a rear-left area of the vehicle, a rear area of the vehicle, and a rear- right area of the vehicle, and
wherein, for a pairing vehicle located at a right side of the vehicle, the pairing region includes at least one of a right area of the vehicle, a rear-right area of the vehicle, and a front-right area of the vehicle ([0013] – [0014] Fig. 3). A radio frequency beacon is implemented into vehicles in order to share and communicate image data wirelessly. When a vehicle detects another vehicle and has established a link to each other selectively, those two vehicles are now paired to share image data together. This link between the two vehicles has about a ten-to-twenty-foot range. Figure 3 demonstrates the range and direction of the radio frequency beacon in order to establish a connection with another vehicle and is capable of linking to vehicles omni-directionally based on the signals being emitted. This encases all pairing regions such as front side, left side, right side, and rear side.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application and with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Zeng as modified by Cheng with the teachings of Seymour to establish a link to a vehicle in any direction in order to not limit the pairing area of the vehicles to widen the scope of pairing vehicles together to be useful in more situational scenarios.
37. Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100198513A1 (hereinafter, “Zeng”), and further in view of US20220036098A1 (hereinafter, “Cheng”), and further in view of US20200364471A1 (hereinafter, “Park”), and further in view of US20230121125A1 (hereinafter, “Coupvent Des Graviers”), and further in view of US6452950B1 (hereinafter, “Ohlsson”).
38. Regarding claim 29, Zeng does not explicitly teach the method of claim 5,
wherein the second time point for the second object is derived further based on a threshold value,
wherein, based on a value based on the transmission latency being less than the threshold value, the delay time is derived as to a first value, and
wherein, based on the value based on the transmission latency being greater than or equal to the threshold value, the delay time is derived as to a second value which is greater than the first value.
However, Park teaches the method of claim 5,
wherein the second time point for the second object… ([0016], [0093] – [0094] Fig. 5), Park teaches on taking images from different vehicles or the same objects. The second object’s first image could have been taken by the first vehicle and the second image of the second object could have been taken by the second vehicle in which both images contain that second object’s first and second time points and locations.
Zeng does not explicitly teach …is derived further based on a threshold value,
wherein, based on a value based on the transmission latency being less than the threshold value, the delay time is derived as to a first value, and
wherein, based on the value based on the transmission latency being greater than or equal to the threshold value, the delay time is derived as to a second value which is greater than the first value.
However, Ohlsson teaches …is derived further based on a threshold value,
wherein, based on a value based on the transmission latency being less than the threshold value, the delay time is derived as to a first value, and
wherein, based on the value based on the transmission latency being greater than or equal to the threshold value, the delay time is derived as to a second value which is greater than the first value ([Col. 2 Lines 22 – 39], [Col. 7 Lines 45 – 67] – [Col. 8 Lines 1 – 10], [Col. 9 Lines 14 – 56] Fig. 5). Ohlsson teaches that smaller delays are used when network conditions are favorable to minimize latency (transmission latency) while larger buffer delays are applied when increase jitter or delay variation is detected to prevent underflow and maintain continuous playback [Col. 2 Lines 22 – 39], [Col. 7 Lines 45 – 67] – [Col. 8 Lines 1 – 10]. Accordingly, the adaptive adjustment of the jitter buffer (10) results in a lower delay value when transmission latency conditions are within acceptable bounds and a higher delay value when latency conditions degrade beyond acceptable thresholds ([Col. 9 Lines 14 – 56] Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that such adaptive buffer control constitutes a threshold responsive two-tier delay assignment because the system increases or decreases buffer delay in response to whether the measured latency conditions fall below or meet/exceed a performance threshold to maintain stable communication quality.
Park and Ohlsson are analogous art to Zeng because Park teaches capturing a second time point of a second object while Ohlsson teaches a jitter buffer that adjusts latency in delay time when data is being fed to an application. A person of ordinary skill would have the motivation to combine Park and Ohlsson because both references are directed toward improving the accuracy and reliability of time-dependent data processing in systems that analyze sequentially acquired information. Incorporating the adaptive jitter buffer delay management of Ohlsson into the object tracking of Park to ensure more reliable synchronization of sequential object data, reduce timing inconsistencies between captured time points, compensate for communication jitter or transmission latency, and improve the accuracy of tracking and relationship calculations between the first and second objects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ohlsson, to modify the teachings of the modified Zeng reference to include the teachings of Ohlsson to reduce inconsistencies with timing between captured points.
39. Claim(s) 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100198513A1 (hereinafter, “Zeng”), and further in view of US20220036098A1 (hereinafter, “Cheng”), and further in view of US20200364471A1 (hereinafter, “Park”), and further in view of US20230121125A1 (hereinafter, “Coupvent Des Graviers”), and further in view of US6452950B1 (hereinafter, “Ohlsson”), and further in view of US20220201204A1 (hereinafter, “Hirata”).
40. Regarding claim 30, the modified Zeng reference does not explicitly teach the method of claim 29, wherein the threshold value is determined based on information related to a number of frames per second or time per frame.
However, Hirata teaches the method of claim 29, wherein the threshold value is determined based on information related to a number of frames per second or time per frame [0046], [0187], [0209]. Hirata teaches adjusting thresholds and detection behavior based on frame acquisition timing, including modifying frame intervals [0187], [0209]. The frame interval is represented by time that is the reciprocal of the frame rate [0046]. Therefore, the threshold determinations are based on information relate to the frame intervals which are based on frame rates.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application and with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Zeng reference with the teachings of Hirata to improve responsiveness, processing efficiency, and perception accuracy.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights