DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the amendments filed on 20 JANUARY 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 8-10, 16, and 19 have been amended. No claim has been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 JANUARY 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2015/0083921 A1 (hereinafter “Ooyabu”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0216906 A1 (hereinafter “Flores”), Applicant alleges the following:
“The applied art fails to teach or suggest the abovementioned features recited in amended claim 1. To demonstrate, Ooyabu (see, e.g., paragraphs [0012]-[0013]) merely describes a vehicle that is outfitted with a ranging device, a communication device, and a ranging synchronization device, whereby signal timing associated with the devices is controlled to facilitate a distance detection between the vehicle and another (different) vehicle. Flores (see, e.g., paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) describes analyzing real-world sensor data to exact insights about the data (such as a quality of the data at various points in space). In particular, Flores (paragraph [0025]) describes learning different characteristics of an environment, where such characteristics may be used to determine portions of a space where signal is strong or weak. In brief, Ooyabu and Flores, taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the specific features (1), (2), and (3) as now recited in amended claim 1 submitted herewith. Accordingly, amended claim 1 is not rendered obvious based on the purported combination of the applied art.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the prior-art of record does not disclose the specific features (1), (2), and (3). Ooyabu’s disclosure continually transmits a signal from a first vehicle to a second vehicle and determines the RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indicator), then determines an adjustment by which to modify the signal strength. See Ooyabu, FIG. 7 and ¶ [0091]. The difference in RSSI accounts for the amplification or reduction in signaling strength and also the corresponding amount, thereby teaching the specific features (1) and (3). Additionally, Ooyabu discloses the ranging techniques can be done in a forward direction and in a rearward direction. See Ooyabu, FIG. 8. The directionality of the vehicle (e.g., forward direction or rearward direction) for determining the RSSI information teaches the specific feature (2). Therefore, Ooyabu discloses each of the specific features (1), (2), and (3), and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2015/0083921 A1 (hereinafter “Ooyabu”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0216906 A1 (hereinafter “Flores”).
Regarding claim 1, Ooyabu discloses a device (FIG. 7, controller (“CTRL”) 3 with front and rear sensors 2a and 2b. Note, each of vehicles VE1, VE2, and VE3 include the same structure), comprising:
a processing system including a processor ([0086], “The controller 3 includes an electronic control unit with an I/O device, a processor, a storage etc.”); and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations ([0086], “The controller 3 includes an electronic control unit with an I/O device, a processor, a storage etc.”), the operations comprising:
obtaining a plurality of inputs, wherein the plurality of inputs includes a first image captured by a first camera at a first point in time (FIG. 7, front optical device 2a of VE1 and rear optical device 2b of VE2. [0079], “in each of the vehicles VE1, VE2, a single optical device 2a, 2b including the infrared light emitter 21 and the light receiver 22 is made to serve a double purpose as a ranging device and a communication device.” [0129], “the photo detector of the optical device 2a, 2b may include a CMOS image sensor or a CCD sensor”);
processing the plurality of inputs to generate ([0087], “The controller 3 further includes a received strength detector 36. Based on a received signal received by the light receiver 22 from the different vehicle VE2, VE3, VE1, the received strength detector 36 detects a received signal strength (RSSI). An adjustment amount calculator 37, which corresponds to an adjustment amount transmitter and an adjustment amount transmission means, is connected to the ranging calculator 31, the received strength detector 36, and the optical devices 2a and 2b. Based on the infrared strength of the received signal from the different vehicle VE2, VE3, VE1 and the distance to the different vehicle VE2, VE3, VE1, the adjustment amount calculator 37 calculates an adjustment amount of the infrared strength with regard to the received signal from the different vehicle VE2, VE3, VE1, and transmits the adjustment amount to the different vehicle VE2, VE3, VE1 through the optical device 2a, 2b”); and
modifyingthereof (FIG. 7, emitter (“EMIT”) 21. [0109], “when the different vehicle VE2, VE3, VE1 newly approaches, the infrared strength of the transmitted signal can be adjusted in a timely manner, and necessary communication with the approaching vehicle can be performed in a timely manner:” e.g., as distance changes a signal strength is adjusted to correspond to the distance).
Ooyabu fails to expressly disclose a first prediction regarding a first characteristic of a first signal.
However, Flores teaches a first prediction regarding a first characteristic of a first signal ([0032], “given the known location of each beacon, the Generation Component 120 can estimate or predict the received signal strength from each beacon at any given point in the space using a path loss model.” Note, the combination of references relies on the “known location of each beacon” corresponding to the distance information from Ooyabu for predicting the signal strength and then Ooyabu can adjust the signal strength with greater accuracy).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a predicted signal strength, as taught by Flores ([0032]), in Ooyabu’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Ooyabu’s disclosure, by incorporating Flores’ disclosure, to improve accuracy for predicting signal characteristics of sensing devices (Flores: [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses wherein the receiver is included as part of the first vehicle (FIG. 7, each of a first vehicle and second vehicle comprises a receiver and transmitter, and can include more than one receiver and transmitter in a given direction in accordance with FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 4, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses wherein the transmitter is included as part of the second vehicle (FIG. 7, each of a first vehicle and second vehicle comprises a receiver and transmitter, and can include more than one receiver and transmitter in a given direction in accordance with FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses wherein the transmitter is included as part of the first vehicle (FIG. 7, each of a first vehicle and second vehicle comprises a receiver and transmitter, and can include more than one receiver and transmitter in a given direction in accordance with FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 6, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses wherein the receiver is included as part of a second vehicle (FIG. 7, each of a first vehicle and second vehicle comprises a receiver and transmitter, and can include more than one receiver and transmitter in a given direction in accordance with FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses wherein the at least a first characteristic includes a signal strength of the first signal ([0109], “the strength adjustment driver 38 adjusts the infrared strength of the transmitted signal each time the optical device 2a, 2b starts detecting the distance to the different vehicle VE2, VE3, VE1. Thereby, when the different vehicle VE2, VE3, VE1 newly approaches, the infrared strength of the transmitted signal can be adjusted in a timely manner, and necessary communication with the approaching vehicle can be performed in a timely manner”).
Regarding claim 9, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Flores discloses wherein the at least a first characteristic includes an indication of interference, noise, or a combination thereof, in respect to the first signal ([0019], “real-world data captures the characteristics in noisy, high interference environments.” Note, the input is affected by noise and interference, which is considered when generating the output signal and thereby “includes an indication”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Flores discloses wherein the operations further comprise: comparing the at least a first characteristic to a first threshold; and determining, based on the comparing, that the at least a first characteristic exceeds the first threshold, wherein the modifying is further based on the determining ([0031], “a position may be scored as having strong signals if the Signal Data 105 includes signals with a predefined minimum RSSI” and “position with scores exceeding a predefined threshold are classified as “strong,” while positions with scores below a second predefined threshold are classified as “weak.”” The disclosure of [0032] relied upon in claim 1 uses the predicted signal strength with the position score). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses wherein the operations further comprise (Note, these operations are interpreted as a second iteration of the same steps of claim 1, which would be happening continually in the prior-art):
subsequent to the modifying, obtaining a second plurality of inputs (FIG. 7, front optical device 2a of VE1 and rear optical device 2b of VE2. [0079], “in each of the vehicles VE1, VE2, a single optical device 2a, 2b including the infrared light emitter 21 and the light receiver 22 is made to serve a double purpose as a ranging device and a communication device.” [0129], “the photo detector of the optical device 2a, 2b may include a CMOS image sensor or a CCD sensor”);
processing the second plurality of inputs to generate a second prediction regarding a second characteristic of a second signal associated with the first vehicle that is to be detected by the receiver at a third point in time that is subsequent to the second point in time ([0109], “the strength adjustment driver 38 adjusts the infrared strength of the transmitted signal each time the optical device 2a, 2b starts detecting the distance to the different vehicle VE2, VE3, VE1:” e.g., a distance with a corresponding signal strength. Note, as per the combination established in claim 1, the distance is used to predict a signal strength by way of Flores’ teachings); and
modifying, based on the second prediction, a third parameter of a second transmitter that emits the second signal, a fourth parameter of the receiver, or a combination thereof (FIG. 7, emitter (“EMIT”) 21. [0109], “when the different vehicle VE2, VE3, VE1 newly approaches, the infrared strength of the transmitted signal can be adjusted in a timely manner, and necessary communication with the approaching vehicle can be performed in a timely manner:” e.g., as distance changes a signal strength is adjusted to correspond to the distance).
Regarding claim 12, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses wherein the first prediction is based on identifying a plurality of objects in accordance with the processing of the plurality of inputs (FIG. 2 discloses having detected two objects, object 5a and 5b. FIG. 8 further depicts a center vehicle depicting the identification of two objects, vehicle 2 and vehicle 3. The object detection process is for determining the distance required for the signal strength characteristic of the prediction).
Regarding claim 13, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 12, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses wherein the plurality of objects includes a second vehicle (FIG. 3 discloses a vehicle 2 detected as the object and FIG. 8 discloses a vehicle 2 and vehicle 3 detected as the object).
Regarding claim 14, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses wherein the plurality of inputs includes an identification of: a direction of travel of the first vehicle, a speed of the first vehicle, an acceleration of the first vehicle, a direction of travel of a second vehicle, a speed of the second vehicle, an acceleration of the second vehicle, or any combination thereof ([0084] describes signaling distances as a function of speed. [0072], “take into account not only the detected distance between the first vehicle VE1 and the second vehicle VE2 but also a speed, a steering wheel position, a gear shifter position, a heading direction or the like of each vehicle VE1 and VE2”).
Regarding claim 15, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses wherein the first signal conveys data that controls: a first operation of the first vehicle, a second operation of a second vehicle, or a combination thereof (FIG. 5 depicts a collision avoidance control based on the ranging operation (e.g., distance) and established communication).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 16. Additionally, Flores discloses a model to generate prediction involving a quality of a first signal (FIG. 1 discloses the steps of generating a machine learning model, including receiving signal data 105, evaluating in evaluation component 110, and perform scoring at position scores 115. [0031-0033] describes predicting a signal strength as part of the evaluation and scoring, which describes a quality of the signal). The result will produce a signal received above a threshold, because Ooyabu adjusts the signal strength dependent on the distance to receive a good signal, where good is a signal strength above a threshold. The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 16.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2015/0083921 A1 (hereinafter “Ooyabu”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0216906 A1 (hereinafter “Flores”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0030430 A1 (hereinafter “Lund”).
Regarding claim 2, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Ooyabu and Flores fail to expressly disclose wherein the plurality of inputs includes a second image captured by a second camera.
However, Lund teaches wherein the plurality of inputs includes a second image captured by a second camera ([0148] discloses determining locations of vehicles using a plurality of means including cameras. [0150], “the vehicle 1000 may contain one or a plurality of cameras” and describes multiple views and also stitching images).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a second camera, as taught by Lund ([0150]), in Ooyabu and Flores’ disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Ooyabu and Flores’ disclosure, by incorporating Lund’s disclosure, to improve communication between vehicles (Lund: [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Ooyabu, Flores, and Lund disclose every limitation of claim 2, as outlined above. Additionally, Lund discloses wherein the second image is captured by the second camera at the first point in time ([0148] discloses determining locations of vehicles using a plurality of means including cameras. [0150], “the vehicle 1000 may contain one or a plurality of cameras” and describes multiple views and also stitching images. Multi-view and stitched images with multiple cameras function at the same time). The same motivation of claim 2 applies to claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1 and 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claims 1 and 2 apply equally as well to claim 19. Additionally, Flores discloses in [0031-0033] a good signal strength in one exceeding a threshold and the combination relies on Ooyabu adjusting the signal strength based on a distance to assure a good signal strength.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2015/0083921 A1 (hereinafter “Ooyabu”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0216906 A1 (hereinafter “Flores”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0164423 A1 (hereinafter “Bai”).
Regarding claim 17, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 16, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses wherein the first transmitter is included as part of a second vehicle, wherein the second vehicle and the first vehicle move relative to one another when the first transmitter emits the first signal(FIG. 7, each of a first vehicle and second vehicle comprises a receiver and transmitter, and can include more than one receiver and transmitter in a given direction in accordance with FIG. 6).
Ooyabu fails to expressly disclose wherein the second transmitter is included as part of network infrastructure of a cellular network.
However, Bai teaches wherein the second transmitter is included as part of network infrastructure of a cellular network ([0027] discloses vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication, including other vehicles, and utilizing cellular networks).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used V2X that is part of a cellular network, as taught by Bai ([0027]), in Ooyabu and Flores’ disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Ooyabu and Flores’ disclosure, by incorporating Bai’s disclosure, to enable quick and efficient detection of one or more objects (Bai: [0028]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2015/0083921 A1 (hereinafter “Ooyabu”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0216906 A1 (hereinafter “Flores”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20230224794 A1 (hereinafter “Elhadeedy”).
Regarding claim 18, Ooyabu and Flores disclose every limitation of claim 16, as outlined above. Ooyabu and Flores fail to expressly disclose wherein the model incorporates: a zero-order process (ZOP), an autoregressive moving average (ARMA), a linear model, a linear regression model, a convolutional neural network (CNN), a graph neural network (GNN), or any combination thereof.
However, Elhadeedy teaches wherein the model incorporates: a zero-order process (ZOP), an autoregressive moving average (ARMA), a linear model, a linear regression model, a convolutional neural network (CNN), a graph neural network (GNN), or any combination thereof ([0081], “the wireless communication control system 512 includes a prediction model (e.g., at least one machine learning model), such as a neural network (e.g., CNN 430, an encoder-decoder neural network, and/or the like), a regression model)” and “The prediction model of the wireless communication control system 512 is trained to analyze at least one wireless communication characteristics (e.g., signal strength, latency, bandwidth, best available bands, signal-to-noise ratio) associated with each transceiver and location information”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a CNN, as taught by Elhadeedy ([0081]), in Ooyabu and Flores’ disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Ooyabu and Flores’ disclosure, by incorporating Elhadeedy’s disclosure, because it is an obvious simple substitution of one predictive model for another with predictable results.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2015/0083921 A1 (hereinafter “Ooyabu”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0216906 A1 (hereinafter “Flores”), further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0030430 A1 (hereinafter “Lund”), and even further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20230224794 A1 (hereinafter “Elhadeedy”).
Regarding claim 20, Ooyabu, Flores, and Lund disclose every limitation of claim 19, as outlined above. Additionally, Ooyabu discloses causing, by the processing system and based on the predicting, the transmitter to emit the first signal at a second point in time that is subsequent to the first point in time such that the first signal is retransmitted by the transmitter (FIG. 4 discloses the synchronization based on the signaling and FIGS. 10-12 the different flowchart interactions between vehicles. Note, the combination with Flores establishes the predictive element and additionally, any second iteration of signaling constitutes a retransmission).
Ooyabu, Flores, and Lund fail to expressly disclose wherein the predicting is further based on an analysis of audio samples obtained from a plurality of microphones.
However, Elhadeedy teaches wherein the predicting is further based on an analysis of audio samples obtained from a plurality of microphones ([0040], “Microphones 202d include one or more microphones (e.g., array microphones, external microphones, and/or the like) that capture audio signals and generate data associated with (e.g., representing) the audio signals. In some examples, microphones 202d include transducer devices and/or like devices. In some embodiments, one or more systems described herein can receive the data generated by microphones 202d and determine a position of an object relative to vehicle 200 (e.g., a distance and/or the like) based on the audio signals associated with the data.” Note, distance is used for determining signal characteristics).
Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used microphones to determine distance, as taught by Elhadeedy ([0040]), in Ooyabu, Flores, and Lund’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Ooyabu, Flores, and Lund’s disclosure, by incorporating Elhadeedy’s disclosure, because it is an obvious combination of prior-arts elements according to known methods for determining distance to an object for the predictability of increased accuracy of object detection.
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 STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights