DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 3/09/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 13, 22, and 27 have been amended. Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/09/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC §101 -
The abstract idea set forth in the claims and in the rejection dated 11/20/25 is “calculating dimensions…” which, as stated before, is a mental process that can be performed by a human using pen and paper, and could also be considered a mathematical calculation. The courts have ruled that ta mental process that requires a human to use the aid of pen and paper is still considered a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04 III)
Applicant asserts “The important question here is… ‘can this operation be performed by a human with sufficient speed and accuracy to provide the needed information in a timely enough fashion to allow the approaching vehicle to avoid a collision with the VRU?’… The answer is ‘No.’” in pages 9-10 of Applicant’s Remarks. Examiner would be inclined to agree if the claims recited a time constraint. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., providing information in a timely enough fashion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims only recite “sufficient time” which is not a clear timeline. As written, the vehicle could be an oncoming vehicle that stops and goes along a trajectory, could be travelling at a very slow speed, and could be oncoming from a very far distance. The only constraint in the claims is that the calculations are completed with “sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision.” Again, the vehicle could be oncoming at a slow rate, while making stops, from a far distance. Examiner suggests amending the claim to provide more information on what “sufficient time” is and how the calculations are done for that time such as a requirement of speed, acceleration, distance, a deceleration time, a time to collision, or the like. The claims must positively recite the time constraint that the Applicant is relying upon.
Applicant further asserts “for this claim to be performed by a human would require not only the calculation of the bounding box but also the transmission of the calculated value to an approaching vehicle via an RF Signal… The Office sidesteps the question of whether transmitting the calculated value to an approaching vehicle can also be performed by a human mind” in page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks. This is not “a neat trick.” The transmitting limitation is NOT a mental step and was never relied upon as a mental step. This limitation is considered an additional element that is to be considered under Step 2A Prong 2. In Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim, beyond the abstract idea, integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. In the instant application, these such additional elements is the transmitting step. As such, the recitation of transmitting dimensions of the bounding box (transmitting the abstract idea) is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because transmitting the abstract idea is considered transmitting the data to vehicles which is not novel. The courts have ruled that transmitting data over a network is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Applicant further asserts that “the claims recite an improvement in collision detection and avoidance technology” in pages 11-12 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant, again, is relying upon features of the invention (collision avoidance) that is not recited in the claims. The claims merely recite “the dimensions being sufficient to provide the approaching vehicle with sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU,” not that the vehicle is actually caused to avoid the collision using the bounding box dimensions. As claimed, the dimensions are intended and could to be used to avoid a collision but the claims to not positively recite that the vehicle is controlled to avoid a collision using the bounding box dimensions. As such, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and the rejection under 35 USC §101 is maintained as outlined below.
Rejections under 35 USC §103 –
Applicant asserts “the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, Shalev-Shwartz, and Zhang fails to disclose, teach, or suggest calculating a vehicle-specific bounding box having an in-track axis based on the direction of motion of the approaching vehicle, as claimed” in page 13 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shalev-Shwartz teaches a proximity buffer for a minimum distance to be maintained wherein the minimum distance may be a distance that the host vehicle will be able to avoid a collision with the pedestrian such as a stopping distance of the host vehicle based on a current speed of the host vehicle (see at least [0771]) wherein a known vehicle weight or vehicle model is used to look up a known braking capability (see at least [0614] and [0664]). The proximity buffer is shown in Fig. 46B as a box which has an x and y which reads on applicant’s “in-track axis” and “cross-track axis.” Although Applicant asserts that “bounding box is based on direction of motion of pedestrian, not the approaching vehicle” in Shalev-Shwartz, in Fig. 46B, the buffer is still along the motion of the vehicle and reads on Applicant’s claims.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC §103 are also unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC §101, the amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §101 are maintained as outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, the amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §103 are maintained as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically regarding independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 27, the added limitation “based on a direction of motion of the vehicle” is not presented in the specification. Applicant’s specification merely recites “The dimensions of the bounding box may be expressed using in-track and cross-track axes of the approaching vehicle, where the in-track axis is roughly aligned with the direction of motion of the vehicle (e.g., “front-to-back”) and the cross-track axis is orthogonal to the in-track axis (e.g., “side-to-side”)” (emphasis added) in paragraph [0112]. Dependent claims 2-12, 14-21, 23-26, and 28-30 are dependent on claims 1, 13, 22, and 27 and inherit the deficiency above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Revised Guidance, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-21 are directed to a method and recites at least one step, claims 22-26 are directed to network entity that comprises a memory and at least one processor, and claims 27-30 are directed to an on-board unit that comprises a memory and at least one processor. Therefore, claims 1-30 are within at least one of the four statutory categories (process and apparatus).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below). Claim 1 recites:
A method of wireless communication, performed by a network entity, the method comprising:
calculating dimensions of an approaching vehicle-specific bounding box surrounding a vulnerable road user (VRU) in a vicinity of the approaching vehicle, the dimensions being sufficient to provide the approaching vehicle with sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU; and
transmitting, to the approaching vehicle via a radio frequency signal, the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU, wherein the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU are expressed as dimensions along an in-track axis that is approximately aligned with and based on a direction of motion of the approaching vehicle and a cross-track axis that is orthogonal to the in-track axis.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations above constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and mathematical concepts. For example, calculating dimensions of a box can be completed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper and with provided data.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim, beyond the abstract idea, integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception (mental process). The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of wireless communication, performed by a network entity, the method comprising:
calculating dimensions of an approaching vehicle-specific bounding box surrounding a vulnerable road user (VRU) in a vicinity of an approaching vehicle, the dimensions being sufficient to provide the approaching vehicle with sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU and
transmitting, to the approaching vehicle via a radio frequency signal, the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU, wherein the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU are expressed as dimensions along an in-track axis that is approximately aligned with and based on a direction of motion of the approaching vehicle and a cross-track axis that is orthogonal to the in-track axis.
The recitation of “network entity,” “vehicle,” and “radio frequency signal” are provided at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional elements recited fail to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the limitation of “providing the dimensions…” is considered insignificant post-solution activity which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the additional elements and limitations merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim must be further examined under Step 2B.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
In the instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of wireless communication, performed by a network entity, the method comprising:
calculating dimensions of an approaching vehicle-specific bounding box surrounding a vulnerable road user (VRU) in a vicinity of an approaching vehicle; and
transmitting, to the approaching vehicle via a radio frequency signal, the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU, wherein the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU are expressed as dimensions along an in-track axis that is approximately aligned with and based on a direction of motion of the approaching vehicle and a cross-track axis that is orthogonal to the in-track axis..
The newly underlined limitations “transmitting… the dimensions” are equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which falls under insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 13, 22, and 27 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and are ineligible for similar reasons.
Specifically regarding claim 13, the limitation “using the bounding box for VRU safety calculations and collision avoidance including determining a safe braking distance, determining, a safe lane-changing margin, determining a time…” is an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate a safe braking distance and margin using the obtained data. The limitation “on-board unit” is also recited at a high level of generality and merely amounts to applying the abstract idea into a technological environment. The recitation of “using the bounding box for VRU safety calculations and collision avoidance” does not positively recite an action that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. This recitation is seen as an intended use that does not have a positive recitation of how such boxes are being used for collision avoidance. The limitation “receiving… dimensions of a bounding box” is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention.
Specifically regarding claim 22, the limitations “memory,” “transceiver,” and “processor” are also recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention.
Specifically regarding claim 27, the limitations “on-board unit,” “memory,” “transceiver,” and “processor” are also recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recitation of “use the bounding box for VRU safety calculations and collision avoidance” does not positively recite an action that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. This recitation is seen as an intended use that does not have a positive recitation of how such boxes are being used for collision avoidance. The limitation “receive… dimensions of a bounding box” is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 4-5, 15-20, 24-25, and 29 are dependent on claims 1, 13, 22, and 27 and inherit the abstract ideas set forth above. No other technology or action has been recited in the claims to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 4-5, 15-20, 24-25, and 29 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claims 1, 13, 22, and 27.
Claims 3 and 23, in addition to the abstract ideas set forth in claims 1 and 22, recite “calculating the dimensions based on information received” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. With the data gathered, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to estimate dimensions. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2 and 23 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claims 1 and 22.
Claims 6-11, in addition to the abstract ideas set forth in claim 1, recite “calculating the dimensions based on…” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. With the data gathered, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to estimate dimensions. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 6-11 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claims 12 and 26, in addition to the abstract ideas set forth in claims 1 and 22, recite “calculating a confidence level” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. With the data gathered, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a confidence level of the calculated dimensions. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 12 and 26 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claims 1 and 22.
Claims 14 and 28 inherit the abstract idea set forth in claims 13 and 27 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “sending… information…” is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 30 inherit the abstract idea set forth in claims 13 and 27 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “receiving a confidence level” is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-15, 20, 22-25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma Banjade et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0383750 A1; hereinafter Sharma) in view of Kourous-Harrigan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,950,129 B1; hereinafter Kourous-Harrigan) and further in view of Shalev-Shwartz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0291728 A1; hereinafter Shalev-Shwartz).
Regarding claim 1, Sharma discloses:
A method of wireless communication, performed by a network entity (intelligent transportation system (ITS), see at least [0025]), the method comprising:
calculating dimensions of a bounding box surrounding a vulnerable road user (VRU) (VRU Awareness Messages (VAM) for cluster includes information about VRU cluster including dimension of bounding box, see at least [0083], determine cluster dimension, see at least [0433]; program code may be executed on a system of a server, see at least [0543]) in a vicinity of an approaching vehicle (vehicles 110, see at least Fig. 1; VRU system comprise VRU and other road users such as vehicles, see at least [0040]);
Sharma does not explicitly disclose:
dimensions of an approaching vehicle-specific bounding box
dimensions being sufficient to provide the approaching vehicle with sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU
transmitting, via a radio frequency signal, the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU, wherein the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU are expressed as dimensions along an in-track axis that is approximately aligned with and based on a direction of motion of the approaching vehicle and a cross-track axis that is orthogonal to the in-track axis
However, Kourous-Harrigan teaches:
transmitting, via a radio frequency signal (infrastructure component 30 includes transmitter 34, see at least col. 2 lines 54-55; transmitter adapted to radio frequency communications, see at least col. 4 lines 41-45), the dimensions of the bounding box to the approaching vehicle (transmitter broadcasts message to nearby vehicles of message including an object approaching estimated time to a zone, see at least col. 2 lines 47-53) *Examiner sets forth the estimated time to enter a zone is directly correlated to the predicted trajectory of a pedestrian which indicates a zone or area that the pedestrian is predicted to occupy in the nearby future
processing of location and heading information is done by infrastructure and message is sent with the processed information, see at least col. 5 lines 41-53
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vulnerable road user clustering and maneuver coordination disclosed by Sharma by adding the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a “vehicle can thus be warned about the pedestrian sooner than by relying on the sensors on board the vehicle” (see col. 1 lines 39-41).
PNG
media_image1.png
149
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shalev-Shwartz Fig. 46B
Furthermore, Shalev-Shwartz teaches:
dimensions of an approaching vehicle-specific bounding box (maximum braking capability of type of vehicle associated with host vehicle, maximum braking capability of host vehicle may be determined based on trailer, passengers, and cargo weight, see at least [0664] and [0672]; speed and maximum braking capability used to determine distance vehicle would take to come to complete stop, see at least [0673])
dimensions being sufficient to provide the approaching vehicle with sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU (proximity buffer for a pedestrian may be minimum distance at which host vehicle will be able to avoid a collision with the pedestrian and based on stopping distance of host vehicle for current speed, see at least [0771])
wherein the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU are expressed as dimensions along an in-track axis that is approximately aligned with and based on a direction of motion of the approaching vehicle and a cross-track axis that is orthogonal to the in-track axis (buffer zone 1216 may prevent host vehicle from navigating within a distance from the pedestrian in any direction, see at least [0282]; see also annotated Fig. 46B above; construct a proximity buffer relative to host vehicle, see at least [0740]) *Examiner sets forth the buffer zone shown above has a length in the direction of the vehicle and a length perpendicular to the direction of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vulnerable road user clustering and maneuver coordination disclosed by Sharma and the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan by adding the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to maintain safe distance and ensuring an accident can be avoided with a VRU” for safety of the vehicle and pedestrian (see [0643]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
the network entity comprises an in-network server or an out-of-network server (Network Access Node (NAN) 130 is, or includes, an ITS and is a network element part of an access network that provides network connectivity to end-user devices, see at least [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
calculating the dimensions of the bounding box comprises calculating the dimensions based on information received from the approaching vehicle, information received from a VRU user equipment (VRU-UE) of the VRU (VRU cluster leader transmits the VAM indicating the cluster total dimension, see at least [0066]), information provided by a road side unit (RSU), information determined by the network entity, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
the information received from the approaching vehicle is received via a sidelink message, via a basic safety message (BSM), via a cooperative awareness message (CAM), via a PC5 interface, via a Uu interface, or via a combination thereof (in-vehicle system (IVS) 101 communicates via interface 153 which may be PC5 interface and direct links may be sidelinks, see at least [0035]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
the information received from the VRU-UE is received as via a sidelink message, via a personal safety message (PSM), via a PC5 interface, via a Uu interface, or via a combination thereof (user plane protocol stack may be PC5 user plane, see at least [0525])
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but Sharma does not disclose:
calculating the dimensions of the bounding box comprises calculating the dimensions based on information about the approaching vehicle, driver, road conditions, weather conditions, or a combination thereof
However, Shalev-Shwartz teaches:
calculating the dimensions of the bounding box comprises calculating the dimensions based on information about the approaching vehicle, driver, road conditions, weather conditions, or a combination thereof (minimum distance may be determined based on velocity of host vehicle and sensed weather condition, see at least [0656]; maximum braking capability of vehicle based on speed of vehicle, road characteristics, weather conditions, vehicle conditions, or the like, see at least [0664])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vulnerable road user clustering and maneuver coordination disclosed by Sharma and the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan by adding the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine a stopping distance of the vehicle (see [0666]) for avoiding a collision with a pedestrian (see [0771]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but Sharma does not disclose:
calculating the dimensions based on information about the approaching vehicle comprises calculating the dimensions based on vehicle type, vehicle weight, vehicle tire wear, vehicle brake wear, or a combination thereof
However, Shalev-Shwartz teaches:
calculating the dimensions based on information about the approaching vehicle comprises calculating the dimensions based on vehicle type, vehicle weight, vehicle tire wear, vehicle brake wear or a combination thereof (a proximity buffer relative to a pedestrian may be a stopping distance of host vehicle, see at least [0771]; vehicle size may be used to assume a maximum braking capability to assume heavier vehicles take longer to come to a stop, see at least [0722])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bounding boxes for VRUs disclosed by Sharma and the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan by adding the proximity buffer stopping distance and heavier vehicles taking longer to come to a stop taught by Shalev-Shwartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a minimum distance to be maintained between the host vehicle and the at least one obstacle” for safety (see [0771]) and “to determine a target vehicle travel distance that it may take the target vehicle to come to a stop from its current speed if it were to brake at its maximum braking capability” (see [0724]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
calculating the dimensions based on information about the road conditions comprises calculating the dimensions based on a presence or absence of pavement, gravel, dirt, potholes, construction, bike lanes, shoulders, or a combination thereof (VRU clusters can be rectangular such as cycle lane, see at least [0145])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but Sharma does not disclose:
calculating the dimensions based on information about the weather conditions comprises calculating the dimensions based on a presence or absence of precipitation, accumulated ice or snow, fog, wind, bright sunlight, or a combination thereof
However, Shalev-Shwartz teaches:
calculating the dimensions based on information about the weather conditions comprises calculating the dimensions based on a presence or absence of precipitation, accumulated ice or snow, fog, wind, bright sunlight, or a combination thereof (maximum braking capability is used to compute braking distance based on weather conditions, see at least [0712]; weather condition may be snow, fog, see at least [0723])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vulnerable road user awareness and bounding box disclosed by Sharma and the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan by adding the maximum braking capability based on road conditions with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “determine a safe longitudinal distance between a host vehicle, effectively a buffer zone” in order “to avoid a collision” (see [0649]) while factoring in conditions that affect braking distance.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but Sharma does not disclose:
calculating the dimensions of the bounding box comprises calculating the dimensions based on information about the physical environment comprises calculating the dimensions based on a road slope, a visibility distance, or a combination thereof
However, Shalev-Shwartz teaches:
calculating the dimensions of the bounding box comprises calculating the dimensions based on information about the physical environment comprises calculating the dimensions based on a road slope, a visibility distance, or a combination thereof (maximum braking capability may be based on weather condition that affects visibility, see at least [0723]; maximum braking may be determined based on road characteristics such as slope of the road, see at least [0664])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vulnerable road user awareness and bounding box disclosed by Sharma and the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan by adding the maximum braking capability based on road conditions with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “determine a safe longitudinal distance between a host vehicle, effectively a buffer zone” in order “to avoid a collision” (see [0649]) while factoring in conditions that affect braking distance.
Regarding claim 13, Sharma discloses:
A method of wireless communication, performed by an on-board unit (OBU) of a vehicle (vehicle 110 includes in-vehicle system IVS 101, see at least [0028]), the method comprising:
dimensions of a bounding box surrounding a vulnerable road user (VRU) in a vicinity of the vehicle (the ego VRU ITS-S 117 transmits/broadcasts a VAM with the initialized fields to R-ITS-S 130 (network access node) and V-ITS-S 110 (vehicle), see at least [0189]; VRU Awareness Messages (VAM) for cluster includes information about VRU cluster including dimension of bounding box, see at least [0083]; program code may be executed on a system of a server, see at least [0543]); and
using the bounding box for VRU safety calculations and collision avoidance (VRU-collision risk warnings are provided to road user and trigger an automated action in a vehicle, see at least [0041]; awareness used to notify vehicle to warn about potential collision, see at least [0175]).
Sharma does not explicitly disclose:
dimensions of a vehicle-specific bounding box
receiving, via a radio frequency signal from a network entity, dimensions of a bounding box surrounding a vulnerable road user (VRU) in a vicinity of the vehicle, the dimensions being sufficient to provide the vehicle with sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU, wherein the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU are expressed as dimensions along an in-track axis that is aligned with and based on a direction of motion of the vehicle and a cross-track axis that is orthogonal to the in-track axis
including determining a safe braking distance, determining a safe lane-changing margin, determining a time in which to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU, or a combination thereof
However, Kourous-Harrigan teaches:
receiving, via a radio frequency signal from a network entity (infrastructure component 30 includes transmitter 34, see at least col. 2 lines 54-55; transmitter adapted to radio frequency communications, see at least col. 4 lines 41-45), dimensions of a bounding box surrounding a vulnerable road user (VRU) in a vicinity of the vehicle (transmitter broadcasts message to nearby vehicles of message including an object approaching estimated time to a zone, see at least col. 2 lines 47-53) *Examiner sets forth the estimated time to enter a zone is directly correlated to the predicted trajectory of a pedestrian which indicates a zone or area that the pedestrian is predicted to occupy in the nearby future
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vulnerable road user clustering and maneuver coordination disclosed by Sharma by adding the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a “vehicle can thus be warned about the pedestrian sooner than by relying on the sensors on board the vehicle” (see col. 1 lines 39-41).
Furthermore, Shalev-Shwartz teaches:
dimensions of a vehicle-specific bounding box (maximum braking capability of type of vehicle associated with host vehicle, maximum braking capability of host vehicle may be determined based on trailer, passengers, and cargo weight, see at least [0664] and [0672]; speed and maximum braking capability used to determine distance vehicle would take to come to complete stop, see at least [0673])
the dimensions being sufficient to provide the vehicle with sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU (proximity buffer for a pedestrian may be minimum distance at which host vehicle will be able to avoid a collision with the pedestrian, see at least [0771]), wherein the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU are expressed as dimensions along an in-track axis that is aligned with and based on a direction of motion of the vehicle and a cross-track axis that is orthogonal to the in-track axis (buffer zone 1216 may prevent host vehicle from navigating within a distance from the pedestrian in any direction, see at least [0282]; see also annotated Fig. 46B above; construct a proximity buffer relative to host vehicle, see at least [0740]) *Examiner sets forth the buffer zone shown above has a length in the direction of the vehicle and a length perpendicular to the direction of the vehicle.
including determining a safe braking distance, determining a safe lane-changing margin, determining a time in which to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU, or a combination thereof (safe distance includes a braking distance associated with a sub-maximal braking rate, see at least [0742])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vulnerable road user clustering and maneuver coordination disclosed by Sharma and the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan by adding the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to maintain safe distance and ensuring an accident can be avoided with a VRU” for safety of the vehicle and pedestrian (see [0643]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
sending, to the network entity, information about the vehicle, a driver of the vehicle, road conditions, weather conditions, physical environment, or a combination thereof (vehicles 110 have sensors 172 to detect environment surrounding vehicles, see at least [0034] and [0384]; maneuver coordination service (MCS) enables ITS-S to exchange information, see at least [0328] and [0370]; object appearing in path, less visibility due to weather or low-light, see at least [0329])
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
sending information about the vehicle comprises sending information about vehicle type, vehicle weight, vehicle tire wear, vehicle brake wear, vehicle current speed, or a combination thereof (vehicle 110 includes sensors 172 and communicates with NAN 130 to synchronize respective geolocations and positions, see at least [0029]; sensors 172 include vehicle speed sensors, see at least [0560])
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
sending information about the road conditions comprises sending information about a presence or absence of pavement, gravel, dirt, potholes, construction, bike lanes, shoulders, sidewalks, or a combination thereof (VRU clusters can be rectangular such as cycle lane, see at least [0145])
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
the information is sent to the network entity via a sidelink message, via a basic safety message (BSM), via a cooperative awareness message (CAM), via a PC5 interface, via a Uu interface, or via a combination thereof (in-vehicle system (IVS) 101 communicates via interface 153 which may be PC5 interface and direct links may be sidelinks, see at least [0035])
Regarding claim 22, Sharma discloses:
A network entity (intelligent transportation system (ITS), see at least [0025]; Network Access Node (NAN) 130 is, or includes, an ITS and is a network element part of an access network that provides network connectivity to end-user devices, see at least [0036]), comprising:
a memory (NAN is located with edge compute node 140 which may partition resources such as memory, see at least [0056], [0540], and Fig. 15);
at least one transceiver (transceiver 1566, see at least [0552] and Fig. 15); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory (NAN is located with edge compute node 140 which may partition resources such as CPU, GPU, see at least [0056] and [0533]) and the at least one transceiver, the at least one processor configured to:
calculate dimensions of a bounding box surrounding a vulnerable road user (VRU) in a vicinity of an approaching vehicle (VRU Awareness Messages (VAM) for cluster includes information about VRU cluster including dimension of bounding box, see at least [0083], determine cluster dimension, see at least [0433]); and
transmit, to the approaching vehicle the dimensions of the bounding box (edge compute node 140 may provide VAMs, see at least [0052]).
Sharma does not explicitly disclose:
dimensions of an approaching vehicle-specific bounding box
the dimensions being sufficient to provide the approaching vehicle with sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU
transmit, to the approaching vehicle as a radio frequency signal via the at least one transceiver, the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU, wherein the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU are expressed as dimensions along an in-track axis that is approximately aligned with and based on a direction of motion of the approaching vehicle and a cross-track axis that is orthogonal to the in-track axis.
However, Kourous-Harrigan teaches:
transmit, as a radio frequency signal via the at least one transceiver, (infrastructure component 30 includes transmitter 34, see at least col. 2 lines 54-55; transmitter adapted to radio frequency communications, see at least col. 4 lines 41-45), the dimensions of the bounding box to the approaching vehicle (transmitter broadcasts message to nearby vehicles of message including an object approaching estimated time to a zone, see at least col. 2 lines 47-53) *Examiner sets forth the estimated time to enter a zone is directly correlated to the predicted trajectory of a pedestrian which indicates a zone or area that the pedestrian is predicted to occupy in the nearby future
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vulnerable road user clustering and maneuver coordination disclosed by Sharma by adding the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a “vehicle can thus be warned about the pedestrian sooner than by relying on the sensors on board the vehicle” (see col. 1 lines 39-41).
Furthermore, Shalev-Shwartz teaches:
dimensions of an approaching vehicle-specific bounding box (maximum braking capability of type of vehicle associated with host vehicle, maximum braking capability of host vehicle may be determined based on trailer, passengers, and cargo weight, see at least [0664] and [0672]; speed and maximum braking capability used to determine distance vehicle would take to come to complete stop, see at least [0673])
the dimensions being sufficient to provide the approaching vehicle with sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU (proximity buffer for a pedestrian may be minimum distance at which host vehicle will be able to avoid a collision with the pedestrian, see at least [0771])
wherein the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU are expressed as dimensions along an in-track axis that is approximately aligned with and based on a direction of motion of the approaching vehicle and a cross-track axis that is orthogonal to the in-track axis (buffer zone 1216 may prevent host vehicle from navigating within a distance from the pedestrian in any direction, see at least [0282]; see also annotated Fig. 46B above; construct a proximity buffer relative to host vehicle, see at least [0740]) *Examiner sets forth the buffer zone shown above has a length in the direction of the vehicle and a length perpendicular to the direction of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vulnerable road user clustering and maneuver coordination disclosed by Sharma and the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan by adding the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to maintain safe distance and ensuring an accident can be avoided with a VRU” for safety of the vehicle and pedestrian (see [0643]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
to calculate the dimensions of the bounding box, the at least one processor is configured to calculate the dimensions based on information received from the approaching vehicle, information received from a VRU user equipment (VRU-UE) of the VRU (VRU cluster leader transmits the VAM indicating the cluster total dimension, see at least [0066]), information harvested by the network entity, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
the information received from the approaching vehicle is received via a sidelink message, via a basic safety message (BSM), via a cooperative awareness message (CAM), via a PC5 interface, via a Uu interface, or via a combination thereof (in-vehicle system (IVS) 101 communicates via interface 153 which may be PC5 interface and direct links may be sidelinks, see at least [0035]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
the information received from the VRU-UE is received as via a sidelink message, via a personal safety message (PSM), via a PC5 interface, via a Uu interface, or via a combination thereof (user plane protocol stack may be PC5 user plane, see at least [0525]).
Regarding claim 27, Sharma discloses:
An on-board unit (OBU) of a vehicle (vehicle 110 includes in-vehicle system IVS 101 and driving control unit (DCU), see at least [0028]-[0029]), the OBU comprising:
a memory (memory devices, see at least [0034]);
at least one transceiver (communication interfaces, see at least [0034]; wireless communication technologies such as V2X radio access technologies (RATs), see at least [0029]); and
at least one processor (microcontroller or other processor device, see at least [0034]) communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver, the at least one processor configured to:
receive, dimensions of a bounding box surrounding a vulnerable road user (VRU) in a vicinity of the vehicle (the ego VRU ITS-S 117 transmits/broadcasts a VAM with the initialized fields to R-ITS-S 130 (network access node) and V-ITS-S 110 (vehicle), see at least [0189]; VRU Awareness Messages (VAM) for cluster includes information about VRU cluster including dimension of bounding box, see at least [0083]); and
use the bounding box for VRU safety calculations and collision avoidance (VRU-collision risk warnings are provided to road user and trigger an automated action in a vehicle, see at least [0041]; awareness used to notify vehicle to warn about potential collision, see at least [0175]).
Sharma does not explicitly disclose:
vehicle-specific bounding box
receive, as a radio frequency signal from a network entity via the at least one transceiver, dimensions of a bounding box surrounding a vulnerable road user (VRU) in a vicinity of the vehicle, the dimensions being sufficient to provide the vehicle with sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU, wherein the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU are expressed as dimensions along an in-track axis that is approximately aligned with and based on a direction of motion of the vehicle and a cross-track axis that is orthogonal to the in-track axis
determining a safe braking distance, determining a safe lane-changing margin, determining a time in which to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU, or a combination thereof
However, Kourous-Harrigan teaches:
receive, as a radio frequency signal from a network entity via the at least one transceiver, (infrastructure component 30 includes transmitter 34, see at least col. 2 lines 54-55; transmitter adapted to radio frequency communications, see at least col. 4 lines 41-45) dimensions of a bounding box surrounding a vulnerable road user (VRU) in a vicinity of the vehicle (transmitter broadcasts message to nearby vehicles of message including an object approaching estimated time to a zone, see at least col. 2 lines 47-53) *Examiner sets forth the estimated time to enter a zone is directly correlated to the predicted trajectory of a pedestrian which indicates a zone or area that the pedestrian is predicted to occupy in the nearby future
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vulnerable road user clustering and maneuver coordination disclosed by Sharma by adding the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a “vehicle can thus be warned about the pedestrian sooner than by relying on the sensors on board the vehicle” (see col. 1 lines 39-41).
Furthermore, Shalev-Shwartz teaches:
dimensions of a vehicle-specific bounding box (maximum braking capability of type of vehicle associated with host vehicle, maximum braking capability of host vehicle may be determined based on trailer, passengers, and cargo weight, see at least [0664] and [0672]; speed and maximum braking capability used to determine distance vehicle would take to come to complete stop, see at least [0673])
the dimensions being sufficient to provide the vehicle with sufficient time to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU (proximity buffer for a pedestrian may be minimum distance at which host vehicle will be able to avoid a collision with the pedestrian, see at least [0771]), wherein the dimensions of the bounding box surrounding the VRU are expressed as dimensions along an in-track axis that is aligned with and based on a direction of motion of the vehicle and a cross-track axis that is orthogonal to the in-track axis (buffer zone 1216 may prevent host vehicle from navigating within a distance from the pedestrian in any direction, see at least [0282]; see also annotated Fig. 46B above; construct a proximity buffer relative to host vehicle, see at least [0740]) *Examiner sets forth the buffer zone shown above has a length in the direction of the vehicle and a length perpendicular to the direction of the vehicle.
determining a safe braking distance, determining a safe lane-changing margin, determining a time in which to execute a maneuver to avoid a collision with the VRU, or a combination thereof (safe distance includes a braking distance associated with a sub-maximal braking rate, see at least [0742])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vulnerable road user clustering and maneuver coordination disclosed by Sharma and the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan by adding the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to maintain safe distance and ensuring an accident can be avoided with a VRU” for safety of the vehicle and pedestrian (see [0643]).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
the at least one processor is further configured to send, via the at least one transceiver, to the network entity, information about the vehicle, a driver of the vehicle, road conditions, weather conditions, physical environment, or a combination thereof (vehicles 110 have sensors 172 to detect environment surrounding vehicles, see at least [0034] and [0384]; maneuver coordination service (MCS) enables ITS-S to exchange information, see at least [0328] and [0370]; object appearing in path, less visibility due to weather or low-light, see at least [0329])
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above and Sharma further discloses:
the information is sent to the network entity via a sidelink message, via a basic safety message (BSM), via a cooperative awareness message (CAM), via a PC5 interface, via a Uu interface, or via a combination thereof (in-vehicle system (IVS) 101 communicates via interface 153 which may be PC5 interface and direct links may be sidelinks, see at least [0035])
Claims 8, 12, 21, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz as applied to claims 1, 13, 22, and 27 above and further in view of Delhaye et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0227360 A1; hereinafter Delhaye).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but does not teach:
calculating the dimensions based on information about the driver comprises calculating the dimensions based on driver age, estimated driver experience, estimated driver fatigue, or a combination thereof
However, Delhaye teaches:
calculating the dimensions based on information about the driver comprises calculating the dimensions based on driver age, estimated driver experience, estimated driver fatigue, or a combination thereof (dimensional safety margin for providing notifications can refer to reaction time of driver to become fully aware of the danger, see at least [0101]; keen and alert driver may have perception-reaction times that are lower, see at least [0104])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bounding boxes for VRUs disclosed by Sharma, the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan, and the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz by adding the safety margin based on environment taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “in order to determine a dimensional safety margin for providing danger notifications with sufficient lead time to react” (see [0090]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but does not teach:
calculating the dimensions of the bounding box comprises calculating a confidence level associated with the bounding box, and wherein providing the dimensions of the bounding box to the approaching vehicle comprises providing an indicator of the confidence level
However, Delhaye teaches:
calculating the dimensions of the bounding box comprises calculating a confidence level associated with the bounding box (dimensional safety margin M may relate to a confidence factor, see at least [0105]), and wherein providing the dimensions of the bounding box to the approaching vehicle comprises providing an indicator of the confidence level (if confidence factor is 5 or lower, ADAS or ADS may be triggered for notified vehicle, see at least [0143])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bounding boxes for VRUs disclosed by Sharma, the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan, and the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz by adding the confidence factor taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for determining “a range of plausible values for the collision probability between a VRU and a vehicle” to avoid a collision (see [0106]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but does not teach:
receiving the dimensions of the bounding box comprises receiving a confidence level associated with the dimensions, which is considered while using the bounding box for VRU safety calculations and collision avoidance.
However, Delhaye teaches:
receiving the dimensions of the bounding box comprises receiving a confidence level associated with the dimensions, which is considered while using the bounding box for VRU safety calculations and collision avoidance (dimensional safety margin M may relate to a confidence factor, see at least [0105]; if confidence factor is 5 or lower, ADAS or ADS may be triggered for notified vehicle, see at least [0143])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bounding boxes for VRUs disclosed by Sharma, the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan, and the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz by adding the confidence factor taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for determining “a range of plausible values for the collision probability between a VRU and a vehicle” to avoid a collision (see [0106]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but does not teach:
calculating the dimensions of the bounding box comprises calculating a confidence level associated with the bounding box, and wherein providing the dimensions of the bounding box to the approaching vehicle comprises providing an indicator of the confidence level.
However, Delhaye teaches:
calculating the dimensions of the bounding box comprises calculating a confidence level associated with the bounding box, and wherein providing the dimensions of the bounding box to the approaching vehicle comprises providing an indicator of the confidence level (dimensional safety margin M may relate to a confidence factor, see at least [0105]; if confidence factor is 5 or lower, ADAS or ADS may be triggered for notified vehicle, see at least [0143])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bounding boxes for VRUs disclosed by Sharma, the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan, and the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz by adding the confidence factor taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for determining “a range of plausible values for the collision probability between a VRU and a vehicle” to avoid a collision (see [0106]).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but does not teach:
to receive the dimensions of the bounding box, the at least one processor is configured to receive a confidence level associated with the dimensions, which is considered while using the bounding box for VRU safety calculations and collision avoidance.
However, Delhaye teaches:
to receive the dimensions of the bounding box, the at least one processor is configured to receive a confidence level associated with the dimensions, which is considered while using the bounding box for VRU safety calculations and collision avoidance (dimensional safety margin M may relate to a confidence factor, see at least [0105]; if confidence factor is 5 or lower, ADAS or ADS may be triggered for notified vehicle, see at least [0143])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bounding boxes for VRUs disclosed by Sharma, the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan, and the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz by adding the confidence factor taught by Delhaye with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for determining “a range of plausible values for the collision probability between a VRU and a vehicle” to avoid a collision (see [0106]).
Claims 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Brandmaier et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0284514 A1; hereinafter Brandmaier).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but does not teach:
sending information about the driver comprises sending information about driver age, estimated driver experience, estimated driver fatigue, or a combination thereof.
However, Brandmaier teaches:
sending information about the driver comprises sending information about driver age, estimated driver experience, estimated driver fatigue, or a combination thereof (data collected by vehicle sensors may be transmitted to one or more external devices such as remote computing devices such as accident analysis server 250, see at least [0035]; sensors may collect data regarding physical or mental state of driver such as fatigue, see at least [0033])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bounding boxes for VRUs disclosed by Sharma, the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan, and the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz by adding the vehicle transmitted data taught by Brandmaier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “detecting an imminent collision” (see [0048]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but does not teach:
sending information about the weather conditions comprises sending information about a presence or absence of precipitation, accumulated ice or snow, fog, wind, bright sunlight, or a combination thereof
However, Brandmaier teaches:
sending information about the weather conditions comprises sending information about a presence or absence of precipitation, accumulated ice or snow, fog, wind, bright sunlight, or a combination thereof (data collected by vehicle sensors may be transmitted to one or more external devices such as remote computing devices such as accident analysis server 250, see at least [0035]; sensors may detect external driving conditions such as rain, snow, light levels, and sun position, see at least [0032])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bounding boxes for VRUs disclosed by Sharma, the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan, and the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz by adding the vehicle transmitted data taught by Brandmaier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “detecting an imminent collision” (see [0048]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sharma, Kourous-Harrigan, and Shalev-Shwartz teaches the elements above but does not teach:
sending information about the physical environment comprises sending information about a slope of a road, a visibility distance, or a combination thereof
However, Brandmaier teaches:
sending information about the physical environment comprises sending information about a slope of a road, a visibility distance, or a combination thereof (data collected by vehicle sensors may be transmitted to one or more external devices such as remote computing devices such as accident analysis server 250, see at least [0035]; sensors may detect external driving conditions such as visibility, see at least [0032])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bounding boxes for VRUs disclosed by Sharma, the infrastructure RF signal taught by Kourous-Harrigan, and the buffer zone taught by Shalev-Shwartz by adding the vehicle transmitted data taught by Brandmaier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “detecting an imminent collision” (see [0048]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights