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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 11 and 11 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are presented as original claims.
No claims are newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 10-11, 14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha et al. (US 20220343241 A1) in view of Khasawneh (US 20200209870 A1) in view of Merwaday (US 20210264794 A1) (the combination of which is referenced as ‘combination Jha’ below).
Regarding claim 1, Jha discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to: (Jha: ¶ 308; processor device) maintain a digital map indicating locations of events based on a plurality of messages containing indications of the locations of the events; (Jha: ¶ 302; data fusion mechanism is able to provide an updated object list based on consecutive measurements from (possibly) multiple sensors containing the state spaces for all tracked objects. V2X information (e.g., CAMs, DENMs, CPMs, etc.) from other vehicles may additionally be fused with locally perceived information) (Jha: ¶ 034; includes a static map layer 101, a perceived obstacles layer 102,) receive a first automatically generated message of the plurality of messages, from a first autonomous vehicle in response to a detection of an event by the first autonomous vehicle, the first automatically generated message comprising: (Jha: ¶ 315; determine a state or condition of the surrounding area (e.g., existence of potholes, fallen trees/utility poles, damages to road side barriers, vehicle debris) (Jha: ¶ 217; CPS entity transmits or broadcasts the generated CPM [whereafter] neighbors also exclude any object of same class) an indication of a location associated with the first autonomous vehicle; and an indication of the event; (Jha: ¶ 072; container type is added [to the CPM] if objects have been detected according to the inclusion rules defined in [R06]. The information regarding the location and dynamic state of the perceived object are provided in a coordinate system) (Jha: Fig. 003; [[showing data included in CPM]]) insert the indication of the location associated with the first autonomous vehicle and the indication of the event into the digital map to generate an updated digital map; and (Jha: ¶ 162; Content of incremental CPMs can also be determined based on object lists contained in CPMs from neighbors. Objects present in CPMs from most of the neighbors with the same or similar attributes (e.g., same position, dimensions, heading as perceived by local sensors) can be skipped in incremental CPMs.) (Jha: ¶ 302; data fusion mechanism is able to provide an updated object list based on consecutive measurements from (possibly) multiple sensors containing the state spaces for all tracked objects. V2X information (e.g., CAMs, DENMs, CPMs, etc.) from other vehicles may additionally be fused with locally perceived information) (Jha: ¶ 060; extend the existing CPS and CPMs to enable layered costmap sharing among ITS-Ss.)
Jha is silent or does not explicitly teach: define i) a centroid of a geographic region of the event in the updated digital map and ii) a first bounding line and a second bounding line around the centroid, based on vehicle location data of the first autonomous vehicle; transmit the updated digital map to a second autonomous vehicle positioned within the first bounding line . . . and omit a transmittal of the updated digital map to a fourth autonomous vehicle positioned outside the second bounding line; however, Khasawneh does teach:
define i) a centroid of a geographic region of the event in the updated digital map (Khasawneh: ¶ 033; sensors 35 that obtain information about the position and path of objects, both moving and fixed, around the vehicle 28A. The system 32 includes a display 34 for displaying a path as well as the location of other objects within the closed area.) and ii) a first bounding line and a second bounding line around the centroid, based on vehicle location data of the first autonomous vehicle; transmit the updated digital map to a second autonomous vehicle positioned within the first bounding line: (Khasawneh: ¶ 015; controller updates the map responsive to changes in a location of vehicles and other objects within the defined closed area and transmits an updated map to vehicles within the defined closed area.) and omit a transmittal of the updated digital map to a fourth autonomous vehicle positioned outside the second bounding line transmit the updated digital map to a third autonomous vehicle (Khasawneh: ¶ 043; continuously transmits the map 20 in a form useful by systems within each of the vehicles operating within the closed area as is indicated at 58) . . .
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Khasawneh with the teachings of Jha because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “provid[ing] guidance to a vehicle operator as to a most desirable vehicle path. (Khasawneh: ¶ 004).
Jha is silent or does not explicitly teach: . . . positioned within the second bounding line and outside the first bounding line, based on at least one of a direction, heading, or a planned route of the second vehicle . . . ; however, Merwaday teaches:
A system that transmits differing safety lateral distances, (Merwaday: ¶ 053; the first vehicle SDM parameters may further comprise a defined safe lateral distance between the first vehicle and a third vehicle in the vehicle platoon parallel with the first vehicle and the second vehicle, and the controller may include a lateral controller configured to utilize the SDM to perform lateral control.) environmental data for vehicle control (Merwaday: ¶ 167; communication means further transmits additional platoon messages including information of the environment of the vehicle platoon), and braking control instruction for vehicle control (Merwaday: ¶ 168; including instructions for the first vehicle to execute a predetermined emergency braking maneuver)to map-using members (Merwaday: ¶ 050; map database 204 can also include non-semantic features including point clouds of certain objects or features in the environment)of a platoon based on platoon position (Merwaday: ¶ 053; the first vehicle SDM parameters may further comprise a defined safe lateral distance between the first vehicle and a third vehicle in the vehicle platoon parallel with the first vehicle and the second vehicle, and the controller may include a lateral controller configured to utilize the SDM to perform lateral control.) and respective speed and direction of the second vehicle (Merwaday: ¶ 074-079; Eq. [001]).
Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested: . . . positioned within the second bounding line and outside the first bounding line, based on at least one of a direction, heading, or a planned route of the second vehicle . . .; because a person of ordinary skill in the art ordinary skill in the art would recognize Merwaday technique of considering distance from the ego-vehicle as requiring differing driving control instructions could be applied to and modify Jia’s cell cost sharing based on proximity approach (Jia: ¶ 083-084). Furthermore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in this way because it would predicably result in the benefit of “improv[ing] the safety and road usage efficiency of the platoon” vehicles. (Merwaday: ¶ 114).
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Jha further teaches:
wherein the first automatically generated message comprises: an indication of a sensor type employed to detect the event. (Jha: ¶ 024; costmap 100, maintains an ordered list of layers, each of which tracks the data related to a specific functionality and/or sensor type.)
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 6. Jha further discloses:
wherein the first automatically generated message comprises sensor data indicative of the event. (Jha: ¶ 020; sharing of perception information including multiple layers of a layered costmap, and/or raw sensor data of various sensors.) (Jha: ¶ 049; layer 208 uses the location/position and velocity of detected objects (e.g., extracted from the sensor data representative of individual VRUs))
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Jha further discloses:
further comprising: the first autonomous vehicle comprising: a first sensor configured to detect a relative location of the event; (Jha: ¶ 301; Depending on the sensor type, a state space representation may comprise multiple dimensions (e.g., relative distance components of the feature to the sensor,) a second sensor configured to detect a vehicle location; (Jha: ¶ 363; positioning circuitry 1545 includes circuitry to receive and decode signals transmitted/broadcasted by a positioning network of a global navigation satellite system (GNSS)) and one or more controllers configured to determine an event location based on the vehicle location and the relative location. (Jha: ¶ 064; Reference Position is used for referencing objects relative to a provided global position. For vehicles, the reference point refers to the ground position of the center of the front side of the bounding box of the vehicle) (Jha: ¶¶ 131-132; CPM may be based on one or more of the following conditions: . . . NodeCenterPoint DE is an x and y offset of position relative to the provided reference position in a horizontal plane)
Regarding claim 11, Jha discloses a method comprising:
maintaining, by one or more processors, (Jha: ¶ 308; processor device) a digital map indicating locations of events based on a plurality of messages containing indications of the locations of the events; (Jha: ¶ 302; data fusion mechanism is able to provide an updated object list based on consecutive measurements from (possibly) multiple sensors containing the state spaces for all tracked objects. V2X information (e.g., CAMs, DENMs, CPMs, etc.) from other vehicles may additionally be fused with locally perceived information) (Jha: ¶ 034; includes a static map layer 101, a perceived obstacles layer 102,) receiving, by the one or more processors, a first automatically generated message of the plurality of messages from a first autonomous vehicle in response to a detection of an event by the first autonomous vehicle, the first automatically generated message comprising: (Jha: ¶ 315; determine a state or condition of the surrounding area (e.g., existence of potholes, fallen trees/utility poles, damages to road side barriers, vehicle debris) (Jha: ¶ 217; CPS entity transmits or broadcasts the generated CPM [whereafter] neighbors also exclude any object of same class) an indication of a location associated with the first autonomous vehicle; and an indication of the event; (Jha: ¶ 072; container type is added [to the CPM] if objects have been detected according to the inclusion rules defined in [R06]. The information regarding the location and dynamic state of the perceived object are provided in a coordinate system) (Jha: Fig. 003; [[showing data included in CPM]]) inserting, by the one or more processors, the indication of the location associated with the first autonomous vehicle and the indication of the event into the digital map to generate an updated digital map; and (Jha: ¶ 162; Content of incremental CPMs can also be determined based on object lists contained in CPMs from neighbors. Objects present in CPMs from most of the neighbors with the same or similar attributes (e.g., same position, dimensions, heading as perceived by local sensors) can be skipped in incremental CPMs.) (Jha: ¶ 302; data fusion mechanism is able to provide an updated object list based on consecutive measurements from (possibly) multiple sensors containing the state spaces for all tracked objects. V2X information (e.g., CAMs, DENMs, CPMs, etc.) from other vehicles may additionally be fused with locally perceived information) (Jha: ¶ 060; extend the existing CPS and CPMs to enable layered costmap sharing among ITS-Ss.)
Jha is silent or does not explicitly teach: defining i) a centroid of a geographic region of the event in the updated digital map and ii) a first bounding line and a second bounding line around the centroid, based on vehicle location data of the first autonomous vehicle; transmitting, by the one or more processors, the updated digital map to a second autonomous vehicle positioned at or inside the first bounding line; transmitting the updated digital map to a third autonomous vehicle . . . and omitting a transmittal of the updated digital map to a fourth autonomous vehicle positioned outside the second bounding line.; however, Khasawneh does teach:
defining i) a centroid of a geographic region of the event in the updated digital map (Khasawneh: ¶ 033; sensors 35 that obtain information about the position and path of objects, both moving and fixed, around the vehicle 28A. The system 32 includes a display 34 for displaying a path as well as the location of other objects within the closed area.) and ii) a first bounding line and a second bounding line around the centroid, based on vehicle location data of the first autonomous vehicle; transmitting, by the one or more processors, the updated digital map to a second autonomous vehicle positioned at or inside the first bounding line; (Khasawneh: ¶ 015; controller updates the map responsive to changes in a location of vehicles and other objects within the defined closed area and transmits an updated map to vehicles within the defined closed area.) transmitting the updated digital map to a third autonomous vehicle . . .and omit a transmittal of the updated digital map to a fourth autonomous vehicle positioned outside the second bounding line transmit the updated digital map to a third autonomous vehicle (Khasawneh: ¶ 043; continuously transmits the map 20 in a form useful by systems within each of the vehicles operating within the closed area as is indicated at 58)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Khasawneh with the teachings of Jha because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “provid[ing] guidance to a vehicle operator as to a most desirable vehicle path. (Khasawneh: ¶ 004).
Jha is silent or does not explicitly teach: positioned at or inside the second bounding line and outside the first bounding line, based on at least one of a direction, heading, or a planned route of the second vehicle;; however, Merwaday teaches:
A system that transmits differing safety lateral distances, (Merwaday: ¶ 053; the first vehicle SDM parameters may further comprise a defined safe lateral distance between the first vehicle and a third vehicle in the vehicle platoon parallel with the first vehicle and the second vehicle, and the controller may include a lateral controller configured to utilize the SDM to perform lateral control.) environmental data for vehicle control (Merwaday: ¶ 167; communication means further transmits additional platoon messages including information of the environment of the vehicle platoon), and braking control instruction for vehicle control (Merwaday: ¶ 168; including instructions for the first vehicle to execute a predetermined emergency braking maneuver)to map-using members (Merwaday: ¶ 050; map database 204 can also include non-semantic features including point clouds of certain objects or features in the environment)of a platoon based on platoon position (Merwaday: ¶ 053; the first vehicle SDM parameters may further comprise a defined safe lateral distance between the first vehicle and a third vehicle in the vehicle platoon parallel with the first vehicle and the second vehicle, and the controller may include a lateral controller configured to utilize the SDM to perform lateral control.) and respective speed and direction of the second vehicle (Merwaday: ¶ 074-079; Eq. [001]).
Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested: . . . positioned at or inside the second bounding line and outside the first bounding line, based on at least one of a direction, heading, or a planned route of the second vehicle . . . ; because a person of ordinary skill in the art ordinary skill in the art would recognize Merwaday technique of considering distance from the ego-vehicle as requiring differing driving control instructions could be applied to and modify Jia’s cell cost sharing based on proximity approach (Jia: ¶ 083-084). Furthermore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in this way because it would predicably result in the benefit of “improv[ing] the safety and road usage efficiency of the platoon” vehicles. (Merwaday: ¶ 114).
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Jha further teaches:
wherein a confidence of the event is based on a second automatically generated message, generated by a third autonomous vehicle in response to an additional detection of the event. (Jha: ¶ 040; collaboration request layer 106 allows an ITS-S to request one or more neighbors (e.g., other ITS-Ss) to help to enhance the cost of some cells for which the station may not have high confidence levels to determine a cost value.)
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Jha further teaches:
wherein the first automatically generated message comprises: an indication of a sensor type employed to detect the event. (Jha: ¶ 024; costmap 100, maintains an ordered list of layers, each of which tracks the data related to a specific functionality and/or sensor type.)
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 16. Jha further teaches:
wherein the first automatically generated message comprises sensor data indicative of the event. (Jha: ¶ 020; sharing of perception information including multiple layers of a layered costmap, and/or raw sensor data of various sensors.) (Jha: ¶ 049; layer 208 uses the location/position and velocity of detected objects (e.g., extracted from the sensor data representative of individual VRUs))
Regarding claim 20, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Jha further teaches:
further comprising: detecting, by a first sensor of the first autonomous vehicle, a relative location of the event; (Jha: ¶ 301; Depending on the sensor type, a state space representation may comprise multiple dimensions (e.g., relative distance components of the feature to the sensor,) detecting, by a second sensor of the first autonomous vehicle, a vehicle location; (Jha: ¶ 363; positioning circuitry 1545 includes circuitry to receive and decode signals transmitted/broadcasted by a positioning network of a global navigation satellite system (GNSS)) and determining an event location based on the vehicle location and the relative location. (Jha: ¶ 064; Reference Position is used for referencing objects relative to a provided global position. For vehicles, the reference point refers to the ground position of the center of the front side of the bounding box of the vehicle) (Jha: ¶¶ 131-132; CPM may be based on one or more of the following conditions: . . . NodeCenterPoint DE is an x and y offset of position relative to the provided reference position in a horizontal plane)
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Jha as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Beaurepaire (US 20240035834 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Jha does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more processors are configured to convey an indication of a navigational action to the second autonomous vehicle responsive to the event.; however, Beaurepaire does teach:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to convey an indication of a navigational action to the second autonomous vehicle responsive to the event. (Beaurepaire: ¶ 072; apparatus 10 may track and differentiate the types of vehicles on a given navigable link based on make/model, size, fuel type, transmission type, number of wheels, vehicle features (e.g., lift kits, alloy wheels, droptop, etc.), age, value, etc. This data may be used for various functions including providing customized alerts and route guidance regarding road debris based on vehicle data and other factors.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Beaurepaire with the teachings of Jha because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "precise determination of the vehicle location [which] may provide for the improved navigation and control of an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle by taking into account the location of other objects, " (Beaurepaire: ¶ 002).
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Jha does not explicitly teach:
comprising: conveying, by the one or more processors, an indication of a navigational action to the second autonomous vehicle responsive to the event.; however, Beaurepaire does teach: comprising: conveying, by the one or more processors, an indication of a navigational action to the second autonomous vehicle responsive to the event. (Beaurepaire: ¶ 072; apparatus 10 may track and differentiate the types of vehicles on a given navigable link based on make/model, size, fuel type, transmission type, number of wheels, vehicle features (e.g., lift kits, alloy wheels, droptop, etc.), age, value, etc. This data may be used for various functions including providing customized alerts and route guidance regarding road debris based on vehicle data and other factors.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Beaurepaire with the teachings of Jha because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "precise determination of the vehicle location [which] may provide for the improved navigation and control of an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle by taking into account the location of other objects, " (Beaurepaire: ¶ 002).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Jha as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of St. Romain et al. (US 20210404829 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Jha further teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: compare a confidence of the event to a confidence threshold; (Jha: ¶ 128; If the locally accessible (e.g., on-board) sensors at the Tx ITS-S did not determine perception with a confidence level higher than a threshold confidence value for more than [y]% (where y is a number) of its current cost map grids and the Tx ITS-S has not included a Collaboration Request Cost map Layer . . . , the Tx ITS-S may send Collaboration Request Cost map Layer in the current CPM. [Examiner note: thus not sending the perception without a later specific request]) . . . and responsive to the confidence of the event exceeding the confidence threshold. (Jha: ¶ 128; If the locally accessible (e.g., on-board) sensors at the Tx ITS-S did not determine perception with a confidence level higher than a threshold confidence value for more than [y]% (where y is a number) of its current cost map grids and the Tx ITS-S has not included a Collaboration Request Cost map Layer . . . , the Tx ITS-S may send Collaboration Request Cost map Layer in the current CPM. [Examiner note: thus not sending the perception without a later specific request])
Jha does not explicitly teach:
receive an indication of a location associated with the second autonomous vehicle; and transmit the updated digital map to the second autonomous vehicle based on the indication of the location associated with the second autonomous vehicle; however, St. Romain does teach:
receive an indication of a location associated with the second autonomous vehicle; and transmit the updated digital map to the second autonomous vehicle based on the indication of the location associated with the second autonomous vehicle (St. Romain: ¶ 070; host mapping system may automatically define a geo-fence around a geographical region in which there is a discrepancy. When a connected vehicle subscribed to the host map enters the geo-fence, the host mapping system may transmit the geo-fence to the connected vehicle and request that the vehicle begin transmitting its sensor data).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of St. Romain with the teachings of Jha because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving the responsiveness of the system which "improves power consumption" (St. Romain: ¶ 040).
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Jha in view of St. Romain teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Jha further teaches:
wherein the confidence of the event is based on a second automatically generated message, generated by a third autonomous vehicle in response to an additional detection of the event. (Jha: ¶ 040; collaboration request layer 106 allows an ITS-S to request one or more neighbors (e.g., other ITS-Ss) to help to enhance the cost of some cells for which the station may not have high confidence levels to determine a cost value.)
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Jia further teaches:
comprising: comparing, by the one or more processors, a confidence of the event to a confidence threshold; (Jha: ¶ 128; If the locally accessible (e.g., on-board) sensors at the Tx ITS-S did not determine perception with a confidence level higher than a threshold confidence value for more than [y]% (where y is a number) of its current cost map grids and the Tx ITS-S has not included a Collaboration Request Cost map Layer . . . , the Tx ITS-S may send Collaboration Request Cost map Layer in the current CPM. [Examiner note: thus not sending the perception without a later specific request]) . . and responsive to the confidence of the event exceeding the confidence threshold. (Jha: ¶ 128; If the locally accessible (e.g., on-board) sensors at the Tx ITS-S did not determine perception with a confidence level higher than a threshold confidence value for more than [y]% (where y is a number) of its current cost map grids and the Tx ITS-S has not included a Collaboration Request Cost map Layer . . . , the Tx ITS-S may send Collaboration Request Cost map Layer in the current CPM. [Examiner note: thus not sending the perception without a later specific request])
Jha does not explicitly teach:
receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication of a location associated with the second autonomous vehicle; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the updated digital map to the second autonomous vehicle based on the indication of the location associated with the second autonomous vehicle; however, St. Romain does teach:
receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication of a location associated with the second autonomous vehicle; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the updated digital map to the second autonomous vehicle based on the indication of the location associated with the second autonomous vehicle (St. Romain: ¶ 070; host mapping system may automatically define a geo-fence around a geographical region in which there is a discrepancy. When a connected vehicle subscribed to the host map enters the geo-fence, the host mapping system may transmit the geo-fence to the connected vehicle and request that the vehicle begin transmitting its sensor data).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of St. Romain with the teachings of Jha because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving the responsiveness of the system which "improves power consumption" (St. Romain: ¶ 040).
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Jha in view of St. Romain teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 13. Jia further teaches:
wherein a confidence of the event is based on a second automatically generated message, generated by a third autonomous vehicle in response to an additional detection of the event. (Jha: ¶ 040; collaboration request layer 106 allows an ITS-S to request one or more neighbors (e.g., other ITS-Ss) to help to enhance the cost of some cells for which the station may not have high confidence levels to determine a cost value.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Jha in view of St. Romain as applied to claims 3 above, and further in view of Shahriari et al. (US 20230150514 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Jha in view of St. Romain teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Jha does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine the confidence of the event based on a time elapsed from the detection of the event.; however, Shahriari does teach:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine the confidence of the event based on a time elapsed from the detection of the event. (Shahriari: ¶ 059; computing device 205 uses the receding and/or the historical horizon data to generate a confidence interval. For example, the computing device 205 can apply suitable model-error algorithms to the rationalization value R and its rate of change R based on the receding and/or the historical horizon data.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Shahriari with the teachings of Jha because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "increas[ing] the overall safety of the vehicle during operation [by] includ[ing] “horizon-based” driver assistance system" (Shahriari: ¶ 002).
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Jha as applied to claims 7 and 17 respectively above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20190258246 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Jia further teaches:
further comprising: a third autonomous vehicle configured to: detect the event, and generate local sensor data indicative of the event; (Jha: ¶ 040; collaboration request layer 106 allows an ITS-S to request one or more neighbors (e.g., other ITS-Ss) to help to enhance the cost of some cells for which the station may not have high confidence levels to determine a cost value.)
Jha does not explicitly teach:
perform a navigational action responsive to the event; and convey the indication of the event, the local sensor data, or the navigational action to the one or more processors.; however, Liu does teach:
perform a navigational action responsive to the event; and convey the indication of the event, the local sensor data, or the navigational action to the one or more processors. (Liu: ¶¶ 162-165; a tele-interaction may specify . . . A speed profile describing a preferred velocity of the AV system on a trajectory segment or on the whole trajectory).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Liu with the teachings of Jha because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of allowing consideration of historic actions taken in response to a given road perception (Liu: ¶ 035).
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Jha in view of Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 8. Jia further teaches:
wherein the third autonomous vehicle is further configured to receive sensor data indicative of the event from the one or more processors; (Jha: ¶ 020; sharing of perception information including multiple layers of a layered costmap, and/or raw sensor data of various sensors.) compare the received sensor data to the local sensor data; and automatically transmit a second message to the one or more processors to provide a further indication of the event based on the comparison. (Jha: ¶ 130; [if] the Tx ITS-S has [used local sensor data to calculate sensor] values for some or all requested cells and confidence levels of these cost values are higher than any other response from other neighbors for this collaboration request. The ITS-S includes that specific Cost Map Layer in the current CPM)
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, combination Jha teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 17. Jia further teaches:
further comprising: detecting, by a third autonomous vehicle, the event, and generate local sensor data indicative of the event; (Jha: ¶ 040; collaboration request layer 106 allows an ITS-S to request one or more neighbors (e.g., other ITS-Ss) to help to enhance the cost of some cells for which the station may not have high confidence levels to determine a cost value.)
Jha does not explicitly teach:
performing, by the third autonomous vehicle, a navigational action responsive to the event; and conveying, by the third autonomous vehicle, an indication of the local sensor data or the navigational action to the one or more processors.; however, Liu does teach:
performing, by the third autonomous vehicle, a navigational action responsive to the event; and conveying, by the third autonomous vehicle, an indication of the local sensor data or the navigational action to the one or more processors. (Liu: ¶¶ 162-165; a tele-interaction may specify . . . A speed profile describing a preferred velocity of the AV system on a trajectory segment or on the whole trajectory).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Liu with the teachings of Jha because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of allowing consideration of historic actions taken in response to a given road perception (Liu: ¶ 035).
Regarding claim 19, as detailed above, combination Jha in view of Liu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 18. Jia further teaches:
further comprising: receiving, by the third autonomous vehicle, sensor data indicative of the event from the one or more processors; (Jha: ¶ 020; sharing of perception information including multiple layers of a layered costmap, and/or raw sensor data of various sensors.) comparing, by the third autonomous vehicle, the received sensor data to the local sensor data; and automatically transmitting, by the third autonomous vehicle, a second message to the one or more processors to provide a further indication of the event based on the comparison. (Jha: ¶ 130; [if] the Tx ITS-S has [used local sensor data to calculate sensor] values for some or all requested cells and confidence levels of these cost values are higher than any other response from other neighbors for this collaboration request. The ITS-S includes that specific Cost Map Layer in the current CPM)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Jha as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20190258246 A1).
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, Jia teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Jha does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, a confidence of the event based on a time elapsed from the detection of the event; however, Shahriari does teach:
further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, a confidence of the event based on a time elapsed from the detection of the event. (Shahriari: ¶ 059; computing device 205 uses the receding and/or the historical horizon data to generate a confidence interval. For example, the computing device 205 can apply suitable model-error algorithms to the rationalization value R and its rate of change R based on the receding and/or the historical horizon data.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Shahriari with the teachings of Jha because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "increas[ing] the overall safety of the vehicle during operation [by] includ[ing] “horizon-based” driver assistance system" (Shahriari: ¶ 002).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments are directed toward defining a centroid of a geographic region of the event in the updated digital map and ii) a first bounding line and a second bounding line around the centroid, based on vehicle location data of the first autonomous vehicle; transmit the updated digital map to a second autonomous vehicle positioned within the first bounding line: transmit the updated digital map to a third autonomous vehicle positioned within the second bounding line and outside the first bounding line, based on at least one of a direction, heading, or a planned route of the second vehicle; and omit a transmittal of the updated digital map to a fourth autonomous vehicle positioned outside the second bounding line.
However, newly applied art Khasawneh (US 20200209870 A1) teaches a system where an updated map is provided to vehicles within a closed boundary area and not transmitted to vehicles outside of the closed boundary area. Concurrently, tertiarily art Merwaday (US 20210264794 A1) teaches considering a platoon position when transmitting updated control instructions to other nearby vehicles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested the amended claims because the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Khasawneh’s closed boundary approach with the multiple vehicle considerations of Merwaday resulting in the claimed invention because doing so would improve safety and road usage efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Baglin (US 20220210688 A1) which discloses a v2x system designed to manage the risk of collision by exchanging data.
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 CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206[ 5 ]571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663