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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on November 6, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-17 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-17 are currently rejected.
Claims 1, 3, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuman (et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0156621).
Claims 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuman (et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0156621) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0150684).
Claims 8-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuman et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0156621) in view of Petit et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0111436).
Claims 9-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuman (et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0156621) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0150684), further in view of Petit et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0111436).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0150684).
Response to Arguments
Objection to the Specification
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on November 6, 2025, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed on November 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant appears to describe the Shuman reference as disclosing “the existence of both a vehicle-side processor and an RSU-side processor,” and concludes that Shuman fails to teach or suggest that the vehicle-side processor and RSU-side processor arbitrate control commands (Applicant Remarks page 10-11).
The Examiner has considered the arguments presented and respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant appears to conclude that the reference does not teach or suggest that the vehicle-side processor and RSU-side processor arbitrate control commands without producing additional explanation or contrary evidence establishing that the reference being relied on would not enable a skilled artisan to produce the recited limitations (MPEP 2145). Therefore, the Applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Second, even if evidence is provided, Shuman expressly discloses that the processor 221 provides information processing capabilities to the RSU control unit 220 (Shuman ¶ 61) of RSU 201, wherein the RSU 201 determines and transmits control instructions to vehicle 101 (Shuman ¶ 50). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, words of a claim are given their plain meaning (MPEP 2111.01). “Arbitrate” in accordance with the definition provided by Merriam-Webster, merely means to determine. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the processor of the RSU would provide information to the RSU enabling the RSU to determine, or arbitrate, control instructions to transmit the control instructions to the vehicle, and that therefore, the processor of the RSU is included in arbitrating the control commands. Therefore, Shuman teaches and suggests the processor arbitrating control commands. Thus, the Examiner maintains the rejection for claim 1. Independent claims 16 and 17 recite similar limitations to those provided in claim 1 and are supported by this rationale.
Dependent claims 3 and 6-15 rely on claim 1 and are also supported by the rationale provided above. Thus, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 3 and 6-15. Additional citations from within the prior art of record are provided for further clarification.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows as recited in claim(s) 1-17:
“vehicle information processing device” in claims 1, 14, and 16-17;
“control target devices” in claims 1, 3, and 6-7;
“first external information processing device” in claims 1, 3, and 14-15;
“second external information processing device” in claim 3;
“vehicle control applications” in claims 1, 3, 14, and 16-17;
“first arbitration unit” in claims 2 and 15; “second arbitration unit” in claims 7, 9, and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Structure for the limitation “vehicle information processing device” is provided in paragraphs 32-33 of the instant specification defining the vehicle information processing device 10 to include a processor 11, which may further include a central processing unit (CPU).
The recited “control target device” is defined in paragraph 31 to refer to actuators of the vehicle.
The “first external information processing device 20” is defined in paragraph 47 of the instant specification to include a first processor 21 configured by a CPU.
Similarly, the “second external information processing device 40” similarly includes a second processor 41 configured by a CPU.
Structure for the limitation “vehicle control applications” is defined in paragraph 25 of the instant specification as being installed in at least one of the vehicle information processing device and a first external information processing device, both of which include processors. Therefore, the vehicle control application is a component of one of the processors.
Similarly, structure for the recited first and second “arbitration unit” is defined in paragraph 27 as the arbitration unit is provided in the vehicle information processing device, which includes a processor. Therefore, the arbitration unit is a component of the processor.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuman (et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0156621).
Regarding claim 1, Shuman discloses a vehicle information processing system comprising:
a vehicle information processing device comprising a first processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions, mounted on a vehicle; (Shuman Fig, 2 depicts vehicle control unit 120 of vehicle 101. Also see ¶ 54.)
a vehicle cloud including a first external information processing device provided outside the vehicle; (Shuman Fig. 2 depicts an external roadside unit RSU 201)
a plurality of vehicle control applications stored in at least one of the vehicle information processing device and a first external processing device as computer-readable instructions, configured to output control commands to control target devices of the vehicle, (Shuman Fig. 3 depicts RSU processing system 520 that includes a plurality of machine-readable instructions 320 of processor 221, such that the RSU 201 transmits a message 225 to vehicle 101 and the “output module 128 may be used to communicate with or activate [i.e., control] various components [i.e., target devices] of the vehicle 101,” see ¶¶ 55 and 57)
the vehicle control applications being installed in at least one of the vehicle information processing device and the first external information processing device; and (Shuman ¶ 54 discloses that the vehicle control unit 120 includes circuits and devices used to control operations, including memory 122 which includes “software for controlling the integrated resources and processors,” see ¶ 28)
an arbitration unit comprising computer-readable instructions stored in at least one of the vehicle information processing device and the first external information processing device, (Shuman ¶ 56 discloses processor 221 [i.e., an arbitration unit] of RSU 201 [i.e., first external information processing device]. The processor 221 is an arbitration unit because it provides information processing capabilities in the RSU control unit 220, see ¶ 61, therefore arbitrating data.)
the arbitration unit being configured to arbitrate the control commands for a predetermined one of the control target devices to determine one control command, (Shuman ¶ 61 discloses “The processor(s) 221 may include one of more local processors [i.e., an arbitration unit] that may be configured to provide information processing capabilities in the RSU control unit 220” which “enables the RSU control unit 220 to function,” see ¶ 60)
the control commands for the predetermined one of the control target devices being obtained by the vehicle control applications, (Shuman ¶ 54 discloses “The control unit 120 may use the radio module 124 of the vehicle 101 to communicate with RSUs 201” including receiving information from RSU 201 and electronic signals, such as receiving “information from other vehicles to control their own speed, direction, maneuvering, path planning, etc.” Also see ¶ 61 “The processor(s) 221 may include one of more local processors that may be configured to provide information processing capabilities in the RSU control unit 220.”)
wherein: the first external information processing device includes the vehicle control applications; (Shuman ¶ 52 discloses controlling the RSU 201 [i.e., external information processing device] by providing to the RSU “processing and management of autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle signaling [i.e., vehicle control applications]” from vehicle control server 274, and the RSU 201 in turn transmits a dynamically controlled communication link 225 to the vehicle 101, see ¶ 57)
the arbitration unit includes a first arbitration unit; (Shuman Fig. 2 depicts processor 221 of RSU control unit 220)
the first arbitration unit is provided in the first external information processing device; (Fig. 2 depicts processor 221 of RSU control unit 220)
the one control command determined through arbitrating the control commands by the first arbitration unit is configured to be transmitted to the vehicle; (Shuman ¶ 57 discloses “the RSU 201 may transmit or broadcast a message using a dynamically controlled communication link 225 to the vehicle 101,” such that the RSU 201 may determine and transmit “dynamic traffic control instructions or other V2X messages to the vehicle 101”)
the vehicle information processing device includes at least one of the vehicle control applications; (Shuman ¶ 54 discloses that the vehicle control unit 120 includes circuits and devices used to control operations, including memory 122 which includes “software for controlling the integrated resources and processors,” see ¶ 28)
the arbitration unit includes a second arbitration unit; and (Shuman Fig. 2 depicts processor 121 of vehicle control unit 120)
the vehicle information processing device further includes the second arbitration unit configured to arbitrate the control command obtained by the vehicle control application installed in the vehicle information processing device and the control command transmitted from the first external information processing device. (Shuman Fig. 2 depicts that the vehicle control unit 120 includes processor 121 [i.e., second arbitration unit]. Further, Shuman ¶ 54 discloses “The output module 128 may be used to activate various components of the vehicle 101, such as drive control components, and/or communicate with the RSU 201, including via the radio module 124,” wherein the “message need determination module 332 may be configured to determine whether the vehicle is supposed to receive the message,” see ¶ 68.)
While Shuman does not expressly disclose an “arbitration unit” to “arbitrate the control commands for a predetermined one of the control target device,” it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have understood that the local processor of processor 221 disclosed by Shuman may be an arbitration unit and arbitrates control commands, with reasonable expectation of success, because the local processor is configured to provide information processing capabilities (Shuman ¶ 61), thereby arbitrating or submitting information for processing. By providing information for processing to the RSU, and the RSU transmitting traffic control instructions (Shuman ¶ 50), one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the processor arbitrates control commands to the vehicle, which has drive control components (i.e., control target devices, see Shuman ¶ 54). Therefore, such modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Shuman discloses the vehicle information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second external information processing device (Shuman ¶ 50 discloses an “adaptive traffic management server 270” which is depicted to be external, see Fig. 2) comprising a third processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions (Shuman in at least ¶ 28), including a predetermined application (Shuman ¶ 6) configured to output a control command to at least one of the control target devices, (Shuman ¶ 50 discloses that the RSU 201 may “transmit dynamic traffic control instructions or other V2X messages to the vehicle 101,” and may use radio module 224 for transmitting wireless communications with vehicles, see ¶ 55)
the second external information processing device being provided outside the vehicle and the first external information processing device, (Shuman Fig. 2 depicts that the adaptive traffic management server 270 is provided outside of the vehicle RSU 201 [i.e., the first external information processing device])
wherein: the first external information processing device includes a reception unit configured to receive control information including the control command of the predetermined application; and (Shuman ¶ 55 discloses “The input module 226 of the RSU 201 may receive ITS messaging information, such as from the base station 250 intended to be communicated to vehicles, such as warnings, advisories, information, and other messages,” also see Fig. 2 element 250)
the arbitration unit is configured to arbitrate the control commands configured to be output by the vehicle control applications and the control information received by the reception unit. (Shuman ¶ 54 discloses “The input module 126 may receive sensor data from one or more vehicle sensors (e.g., radar systems) as well as electronic signals from other devices or components,” such that “the RSU processing system may determine a particular message does not pertain to a select vehicle [i.e., arbitrate control commands], in which case that select vehicle either need not receive the message,” see ¶ 88)
Claims 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuman (et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0156621) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0150684).
Regarding claim 6, Shuman discloses the vehicle information processing system according to claim 1, wherein:
the arbitration unit includes a plurality of arbitration processing units associated with types of the control commands; and (Shuman ¶ 50 discloses “the RSU 201 may determine, or partially determine [i.e., arbitrated], and transmit dynamic traffic control instructions [i.e., a type of control command],” wherein the RSU 201 comprises a plurality of vehicle components including radio module 224, input module 226, and output module 228 [i.e., arbitration processing units])
Shuman does not expressly disclose:
the arbitration unit is configured to arbitrate the control commands based on a first type of priority levels when the control target devices to be subjected to the control commands overlap each other, the control commands being arbitrated by the arbitration processing units.
However, Kim discloses:
the arbitration unit is configured to arbitrate the control commands based on a first type of priority levels when the control target devices to be subjected to the control commands overlap each other, (Kim ¶ 190 discloses “If a platooning vehicle performing vehicle platooning is located between the vehicle 1030 and the RSU 1020, a control command for the platooning vehicle may be transmitted so that the beam pattern does not overlap the platooning vehicle,” such that “The eMBB and URLLC services may be scheduled on non-overlapping time/frequency resources [i.e., first type of priority],” see ¶ 136)
the control commands being arbitrated by the arbitration processing units. (Kim ¶ 8 discloses “a communication device including a communicator configured to receive driving-related information of a vehicle, and transmit control information for platooning vehicles, and a processor configured to identify at least one of beam information included in pre-trained information satisfying a correspondence relationship,” such that “The UE selects (or determines) the best beam.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the control signals of Shuman with arbitrating the control commands based on a predetermined first type of priority levels when the control target devices to be subjected to the control commands overlap each other, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable data to be successfully transmitted and received while data communication between a vehicle and infrastructure is not interrupted by platooning vehicles performing vehicle platooning (Kim ¶ 201), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Shuman discloses the vehicle information processing system according to claim 1, wherein:
the second arbitration unit includes a plurality of arbitration processing units associated with types of the control commands; and (Shuman ¶ 55 discloses processor 221 [i.e., second arbitration unit] which may transmit messages to activate, thereby controlling, various components of vehicle 101, wherein the processor 221 includes a plurality of processing units, see Fig. 3.)
However, Kim discloses:
the second arbitration unit is configured to arbitrate the control commands based on a second type of priority levels when the control target devices to be subjected to the control commands overlap each other, (Kim ¶ 190 discloses receiving data from RSU 1020, the RSU , such that “If a platooning vehicle performing vehicle platooning is located between the vehicle 1030 and the RSU 1020, a control command for the platooning vehicle may be transmitted [i.e., arbitrated] so that the beam pattern does not overlap the platooning vehicle,” such that “selecting a suitable beam (when the BS provides dedicated random access resources for certain beams, the beams are prioritized by the UE),” see ¶ 133)
the control commands being arbitrated by the arbitration processing units. (Kim ¶ 8 discloses “a communication device including a communicator configured to receive driving-related information of a vehicle, and transmit control information for platooning vehicles, and a processor configured to identify at least one of beam information included in pre-trained information satisfying a correspondence relationship,” such that “The UE selects (or determines) the best beam.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the control signals of Shuman with arbitrating the control commands based on a predetermined first type of priority levels when the control target devices to be subjected to the control commands overlap each other, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable data to be successfully transmitted and received while data communication between a vehicle and infrastructure is not interrupted by platooning vehicles performing vehicle platooning (Kim ¶ 201), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Shuman in combination with Kim discloses the vehicle information processing system according to claim 6, wherein:
the first type of priority levels includes priority levels determined such that a higher priority level is given to the control command that is output based on latest data among a plurality of the control commands. (Shuman ¶ 78 discloses “the vehicle may receive the message almost immediately [i.e., the latest data] following receipt by the RSU processing system of the V2X information in block 426”)
Claims 8-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuman et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0156621) in view of Petit et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0111436).
Regarding claim 8, Shuman discloses the vehicle information processing system according to claim 6, wherein:
the arbitration unit includes a first guidance control arbitration unit configured to arbitrate guidance control commands for guiding the vehicle, (Shuman ¶ 88 discloses “the RSU processing system may determine a particular message does not pertain to a select vehicle [i.e., arbitrate control commands], in which case that select vehicle either need not receive the message,” see ¶ 88, the RSU processing system including a “transmission direction determination module 330 [i.e., a first guidance control arbitration unit]”)
a first alert control arbitration unit configured to arbitrate alert control commands for issuing alert, (Shuman ¶ 37 discloses that RSU 201 sends, thereby arbitrating, road safety messages (RSMs) and traveler information warnings (TIMs) including “road work warnings” [i.e., issuing alert], wherein the wireless communication is transmitted by radio module 224 [i.e., a first alert control arbitration unit])
the alert being related to driving of the vehicle, and (Shuman ¶ 37 discloses that the road safety messages (RSMs) and traveler information warnings (TIMs) include “road work warnings, road condition warnings (e.g., roadwork ahead, curve speed warnings, animal crossings, icy roads, flash flood warnings, etc.)” and “map information”)
a first travel control arbitration unit configured to arbitrate travel control commands for causing the vehicle to travel; and (Shuman ¶ 54 discloses “The output module 128 may be used to activate various components of the vehicle 101, such as drive control components, and/or communicate with the RSU 201, including via the radio module 124,”)
Shuman does not expressly disclose:
the first type of priority levels includes a highest priority level for the travel control commands, a second highest priority level for the alert control commands, and a third highest priority level for the guidance control commands.
However, Petit discloses:
the first type of priority levels includes a highest priority level for the travel control commands, a second highest priority level for the alert control commands, and a third highest priority level for the guidance control commands. (Petit ¶ 38 discloses “the vehicle processing system may generate an alert display [i.e., alert control commands] that includes only the most relevant or highest priority information” regarding a “V2X-identified threat” [i.e., a highest priority for travel control commands] and “the operator perception assessment layer 316 may use object behavior in combination with location predictions to plan and generate control signals for controlling the motion of the vehicle 101 [i.e., guidance control commands],” see ¶ 68. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that generating an alert that includes only the highest priority information would first require the highest priority information; therefore, the alert control is second priority to the highest priority information. Further, generating control signals for controlling the vehicle based on perception assessment is prioritized after the assessment is made for generating an alert; therefore, the guidance control is a third priority to the alert control. Also see Fig. 3B.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the travel control commands of Shuman with the priority levels disclosed in Petit, with reasonable expectation of success, to avoid overloading the operator with information that is of less importance to the operator (Petit ¶ 38), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Claims 9-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuman (et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0156621) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0150684), further in view of Petit et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0111436).
Regarding claim 9, Shuman in combination with Kim discloses the vehicle information processing system according to claim 7, wherein:
the second arbitration unit includes a second guidance control arbitration unit configured to arbitrate guidance control commands for guiding the vehicle, (Shuman ¶ 88 discloses “the RSU processing system may determine a particular message does not pertain to a select vehicle [i.e., arbitrate control commands], in which case that select vehicle either need not receive the message,” see ¶ 88, the RSU processing system including input module 126 in that “input module 126 may receive sensor data from one or more vehicle sensors (e.g., radar systems) as well as electronic signals from other devices or components” for drive control, see ¶ 54.)
a second alert control arbitration unit configured to arbitrate alert control commands for issuing alert, (Shuman ¶ 55 discloses receiving at the input module 126 “ITS messaging information, such as from the base station 250 intended to be communicated [i.e., arbitrated] to vehicles, such as warnings, advisories, information, and other messages.”)
the alert being related to driving of the vehicle, and a second travel control arbitration unit configured to arbitrate travel control commands for causing the vehicle to travel; and (Shuman ¶ 54 discloses “The control unit 120 may use the radio module 124 of the vehicle 101 to communicate with RSUs 201” including receiving information from RSU 201 and electronic signals, such as receiving “information from other vehicles to control their own speed, direction, maneuvering, path planning, etc.” Also see ¶ 55.)
Shuman in combination with Kim does not expressly disclose:
the second type of priority levels includes a highest priority level for the travel control commands, a second highest priority level for the alert control commands, and a third highest priority level for the guidance control commands.
However, Petit discloses:
the second type of priority levels includes a highest priority level for the travel control commands, a second highest priority level for the alert control commands, and a third highest priority level for the guidance control commands. (Petit ¶ 38 discloses “the vehicle processing system may generate an alert display [i.e., alert control commands] that includes only the most relevant or highest priority information” regarding a “V2X-identified threat” [i.e., a highest priority for travel control commands] and “the operator perception assessment layer 316 may use object behavior in combination with location predictions to plan and generate control signals for controlling the motion of the vehicle 101 [i.e., guidance control commands],” see ¶ 68. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that generating an alert that includes only the highest priority information would first require the highest priority information; therefore, the alert control is second priority to the highest priority information. Further, generating control signals for controlling the vehicle based on perception assessment is prioritized after the assessment is made for generating an alert; therefore, the guidance control is a third priority to the alert control. Also see Fig. 3B.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combination of Shuman and Kim to incorporate the priority levels as disclosed by Petit, with reasonable expectation of success, to avoid overloading the operator with information that is of less importance to the operator, the vehicle processing system may generate an alert display that includes only the most relevant or highest priority information (Petit ¶ 38), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Shuman discloses the vehicle information processing system according to claim 6, wherein:
the arbitration unit is configured to, when a plurality of the control commands is present, determine whether a control command with high urgency related to safety of the vehicle is present among the control commands; and (Petit ¶ 38 discloses “the vehicle processing system may generate an alert display [i.e., alert control commands] that includes only the most relevant or highest priority information” regarding a “V2X-identified threat” [i.e., a highest priority for travel control commands])
the first type of priority levels includes giving a highest priority level to the control command obtained by the vehicle control application installed in the vehicle when a request of the control command with the high urgency related to the safety of the vehicle is present among the control commands. (Petit ¶ 11 discloses “increasing a notification priority of the V2X-identified threat in response to ... determining whether the increased notification priority of the V2X-identified threat is a higher priority than other identified threats,” such that “the operator perception assessment layer 316 may ... determine ... a change to the throttle setting to be commanded [i.e., a request of the control command] to the ... vehicle control unit 240 along with such various parameters necessary to effectuate such a lane change and acceleration” based on the threat, see ¶ 68)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the travel control commands of Shuman with the priority levels disclosed in Petit, with reasonable expectation of success, to avoid overloading the operator with information that is of less importance to the operator (Petit ¶ 38), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Shuman discloses the vehicle information processing system according to claim 7, wherein:
the second arbitration unit is configured to, when a plurality of the control commands is present, determine whether a control command with high urgency related to safety of the vehicle is present among the control commands; and (Petit ¶ 75 discloses “a vehicle safety and crash avoidance system 352 may compare a human operator's change in steering wheel angle to a safe wheel angle limit or parameter [i.e., a plurality of control commands], and issue an override command” as part of vehicle threat management system 350, see Fig. 3B.)
the second type of priority levels includes giving a highest priority level to the control command obtained by the vehicle control application installed in the vehicle when a request of the control commands with the high urgency related to the safety of the vehicle is present among the control commands. (Petit ¶ 38 discloses “the vehicle processing system may generate an alert display [i.e., alert control commands] that includes only the most relevant or highest priority information” regarding a “V2X-identified threat” [i.e., a highest priority for travel control commands])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the travel control commands of Shuman with the priority levels disclosed in Petit, with reasonable expectation of success, to avoid overloading the operator with information that is of less importance to the operator (Petit ¶ 38), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Shuman does not expressly disclose the vehicle information processing system according to claim 7, wherein:
the second type of priority levels includes priority levels determined such that a higher priority level is given to the control command that is output based on latest data among a plurality of the control commands.
However, Petit discloses:
the second type of priority levels includes priority levels determined such that a higher priority level is given to the control command that is output based on latest data among a plurality of the control commands. (Petit Fig. 3A depicts that the threat assessment 314 is based on information from sensor fusion and RWM management layer 312 and operator perception assessment 316, which are the latest data among the plurality of layers of vehicle threat management system 300 for controlling the vehicle, also see ¶¶ 53 and 60.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the travel control commands of Shuman with the priority levels disclosed in Petit, with reasonable expectation of success, to avoid overloading the operator with information that is of less importance to the operator (Petit ¶ 38), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Shuman discloses the vehicle information processing system according to claim 1, wherein:
the vehicle control applications include an application configured to process information about the vehicle, (Shuman ¶ 54 discloses “The vehicle control unit 120 may be or include a V2X processing device”)
the information about the vehicle being transmitted from the vehicle information processing device, and (Shuman ¶ 57 discloses “the vehicle 101 transmitting a V2X message (e.g., a BSM or CAM), using a wireless communication link 125, to the RSU 201”)
the vehicle control applications being installed in the first external information processing device; and (Shuman ¶ 54 discloses that the vehicle control unit 120 includes circuits and devices used to control operations, including memory 122 which includes “software for controlling the integrated resources and processors,” see ¶ 28)
Shuman does not expressly disclose:
the information about the vehicle includes user information including information about a driving tendency of a user in the vehicle, and vehicle information including information about a current position, and a vehicle speed of the vehicle.
However, Petit discloses:
the information about the vehicle includes user information including information about a driving tendency of a user in the vehicle, (Petit ¶ 90 discloses “processing system may calculate an operator's line of sight and corresponding field of view, taking into account the operator's perspective of things (e.g., using in-vehicle sensors and/or OMS providing inputs such as seat height) [i.e., driving tendency],” also see ¶ 67 “owner/operator travel preferences (e.g., preferred lane, roads, routes, and/or destinations, preference to avoid tolls or highways, preference for the fastest route”) and vehicle information including information about a current position (Petit ¶ 45 discloses “the vehicle 101 may include a control unit 240, which may include ... satellite geo-positioning system receivers 213” for “position determination”),and a vehicle speed of the vehicle. (Petit ¶ 34 discloses “all receiving vehicles have the information required to control their own speed”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the information about the vehicle to include user information including information about a driving tendency, as disclosed by Petit, with reasonable expectation of success, so that only relevant warning or warnings may be presented only in the selected display location instead of in multiple display locations, which could clutter displays and potentially reduce the likelihood that the operator recognizes and appreciates the warning(s) (Petit ¶ 24), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuman (et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0156621) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0150684).
Regarding claim 15, Shuman does not expressly disclose the vehicle information processing system according to claim 14, wherein:
the first external information processing device is configured to construct, in a virtual space, a digital twin synchronized in time with a real world, the digital twin being constructed based on the user information and the vehicle information; and (Petit ¶ 37 discloses “an operator may be wearing a head-mounted display (HMD) providing augmented reality displays of vehicle information overlayed on views of the inside and outside of the vehicle where the user is looking [i.e., digital twin]”)
the first arbitration unit is configured to perform arbitration based on information obtained by the digital twin. (Petit ¶ 37 discloses “the processing system may determine where the operator is looking and identify that a display location that lies within the operator's line of sight on which to present a visible warning about the V2X-identified threat”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the arbitration unit of Shuman with the first external information processing device is configured to construct, in a virtual space, a digital twin synchronized in time with a real world, the digital twin being constructed based on the user information and the vehicle information, and performing arbitration based on information obtained by a digital twin, as disclosed by Petit, with reasonable expectation of success, for improving traffic flows and vehicle safety by enabling vehicles to share information regarding their location, speed, direction of travel, braking, and other factors that may be useful to other vehicles for anti-collision and other safety functions (Petit ¶ 34), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0150684).
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses a vehicle information processing method for processing information (Kim ¶ 34) for controlling a vehicle by a vehicle information processing device comprising a first processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions (Kim in at least ¶ 71), mounted on the vehicle and a vehicle cloud (Kim in at least ¶ 83) including and an external information processing device comprising a second processor (Kim in at least ¶ 71) configured to execute computer-readable instructions, outside the vehicle (Kim ¶ 79), the vehicle information processing method comprising:
when (i) a plurality of control command signals is obtained by vehicle control applications of the vehicle information processing device or the external information processing device and (Kim ¶ 198 discloses “When a data transmission rate determined by a beam pattern and power between the RSU and the vehicle does not satisfy a data transmission rate required for a corresponding data profile, the beam pattern and power may be adjusted,” also see ¶ 73 “The processor 180 may control at least some of the constituent elements of the AI device 100 in order to drive an application program stored in the memory 170.”) (ii) the control command signals overlap each other for a predetermined control target device of the vehicle, (Kim ¶ 198 discloses “When another vehicle is driving between the vehicle and the RSU, the another vehicle may overlap a formed beam pattern”) arbitrating, by the vehicle information processing device or the external information processing device, the vehicle control applications or the control command signals to determine one control command signal for the predetermined control target device; and (Kim ¶ 190 discloses “If a platooning vehicle performing vehicle platooning is located between the vehicle 1030 and the RSU 1020, a control command for the platooning vehicle may be transmitted [i.e., arbitrated] so that the beam pattern does not overlap the platooning vehicle,” such that “The eMBB and URLLC services may be scheduled [i.e., predetermined] on non-overlapping time/frequency resources [i.e., first type of priority],” see ¶ 136)
arbitrating the control command obtained by the vehicle control application installed in the vehicle information processing device and the control command transmitted from the external information processing device; and (Kim ¶ 8 discloses “a processor configured to identify at least one of beam information included in pre-trained information satisfying a correspondence relationship equal to or greater than a predetermined criterion with respect to the driving-related information, and ... determine to transmit control information to the platooning vehicles,” also see ¶¶ 71 and 79)
outputting the one control command signal to the control target device (Kim ¶ 8 discloses “a communication device including a communicator configured to ... transmit control information for platooning vehicles, and a processor configured to identify at least one of beam information included in pre-trained information satisfying a correspondence relationship,” such that “The UE selects (or determines) the best beam.”)
wherein: the external information processing device includes the vehicle control applications; (Kim Fig. 4 depicts a first communication device 410 having processor 411, and a second communication device 420 external to the first communication device 410, having processor 421, wherein the first communication device and second communication device may be a vehicle and another vehicle, respectively. See corresponding ¶¶ 99-100).
the one control command determined through arbitrating the control commands is configured to be transmitted to the vehicle; and (Kim ¶ 145 discloses that the network “may transmit information (or a signal) related to the remote control to the autonomous vehicle in operation S3.” Also see ¶ 190.)
the vehicle information processing device includes at least one of the vehicle control applications. (Kim in at least ¶ 34)
While Kim does not expressly disclose an “arbitration unit” for “arbitrating, by the vehicle information processing device or the external information processing device, the vehicle control applications or the control command signals to determine one control command signal for the predetermined control target device,” it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have understood that the processor disclosed by Kim is an arbitration unit with reasonable expectation of success because the local processor is configured to provide information processing capabilities, thereby arbitrating or submitting information for processing. Therefore, the limitations are obvious in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors in a computer and that cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising:
when (i) a plurality of control command signals is obtained by vehicle control applications of a vehicle information processing device comprising a first processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions (Kim in at least ¶ 71), or a vehicle cloud (Kim in at least ¶ 83) including an external information processing device comprising a second processor (Kim in at least ¶ 71) configured to execute computer-readable instructions, the vehicle control applications being stored in at least one of the vehicle information processing device and a first external processing device as computer-readable instructions (Kim in at least ¶ 73), and (ii) the control command signals overlap each other for a control target device of a vehicle, arbitrating, by the vehicle information processing device or the external information processing device, the vehicle control applications or the control command signals to determine one control command signal for the predetermined control target device, the vehicle information processing device being mounted on the vehicle (Kim Fig. 4), and the external information processing device being provided outside the vehicle; and (Kim ¶ 100 discloses processor 421 of the another vehicle 420 outside of the vehicle 410, see Fig. 4 and ¶ 99).
arbitrating the control command obtained by the vehicle control application installed in the vehicle information processing device and the control command transmitted from the external information processing device; and (Kim ¶ 8 discloses “a processor configured to identify at least one of beam information included in pre-trained information satisfying a correspondence relationship equal to or greater than a predetermined criterion with respect to the driving-related information, and ... determine to transmit control information to the platooning vehicles,” also see ¶¶ 71 and 79)
outputting the one control command signal to the control target device; (Kim ¶ 8 discloses “a communication device including a communicator configured to ... transmit control information for platooning vehicles, and a processor configured to identify at least one of beam information included in pre-trained information satisfying a correspondence relationship,” such that “The UE selects (or determines) the best beam.”)
wherein: the external information processing device includes the vehicle control applications; (Kim Fig. 4 depicts a first communication device 410 having processor 411, and a second communication device 420 external to the first communication device 410, having processor 421, wherein the first communication device and second communication device may be a vehicle and another vehicle, respectively. See corresponding ¶¶ 99-100).
the one control command determined through arbitrating the control commands is configured to be transmitted to the vehicle; and (Kim ¶ 145 discloses that the network “may transmit information (or a signal) related to the remote control to the autonomous vehicle in operation S3.” Also see ¶ 190.)
the vehicle information processing device includes at least one of the vehicle control applications. (Kim in at least ¶ 34)
While Kim does not expressly disclose an “arbitration unit” for “arbitrating, by the vehicle information processing device or the external information processing device, the vehicle control applications or the control command signals to determine one control command signal for the predetermined control target device,” it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have understood that the processor disclosed by Kim is an arbitration unit with reasonable expectation of success because the local processor is configured to provide information processing capabilities, thereby arbitrating or submitting information for processing. Therefore, the limitations are obvious in view of Kim.
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 STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662