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 .
1. Claims 1-13 and 18-19 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are amended as filed on 01/22/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0110467 A1), hereinafter Jha, in view of Yuan Chi (Patent No. JP 7267363 B2), hereinafter Yuan, and in further view of Banjade et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0014923 A1), hereinafter Banjade.
2. With respect to claims 1 and 18, Jha taught a method of communication in an intelligent transport system, ITS (0041), comprising at an ITS test station (0042): sending to an ITS station, different from the ITS test station, a request to report perception of objects within an area deemed to be monitored by the station (0104, the collaboration request), the request comprising items of information characterizing objects that perception is to be reported (0041, the object list), in response to the request, receiving an ITS message generated by the station (0041, the object list), and based on the received ITS message, determining whether the SUT is misbehaving (0282, the consistency check fails is misbehaving under broadest reasonable interpretation).
However, Jha did not explicitly state that the station was an ITS-S, under test, SUT. On the other hand, Yuan did teach that the station was an ITS-S, under test, SUT (Page 1, Claim 1, lines 1-7). Both of the systems of Jha and Yuan are directed towards managing ITS systems and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Jha, to specifically utilize a SUT, as taught by Yuan, in order to efficiently maintain proper system functionality. It is to be noted that Jha likely already performs the aforementioned features. However, it is not explicitly stated.
However, Jha did not explicitly state in response to the request, transmitting an ITS message generated by the SUT to a road side unit (RSU), the ITS message comprising information directed to perception of objects as requested. On the other hand, Banjade did teach in response to the request, transmitting an ITS message generated by the SUT to a road side unit, the ITS message comprising information directed to perception of objects as requested (0158). Both of the systems of Jha and Banjade are directed towards managing ITS systems and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Jha, to specifically utilize transmitting an ITS message to an RSU, as taught by Banjade, in order to ensure that each element has useful information towards managing object perception.
3. As for claim 2, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Jha taught wherein the items of information characterizing objects that perception is to be reported comprise a list of one or more reference objects that perception is to be reported (0041 & 0123).
4. As for claim 3, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 2. In addition, Jha taught wherein the list of one or more reference objects comprises at least one reference object present in the area deemed to be monitored by the SUT (0041 & 0123).
5. As for claim 4, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Jha taught wherein the area deemed to be monitored by the SUT is monitored by the ITS test station (0210, the monitoring).
6. As for claim 5, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 4. In addition, Jha taught wherein the received ITS message comprises a reference to at least one reference object of the list of one or more reference objects and location information of the at least one reference object, the SUT being determined as malfunctioning in response to determining that the location of the at least one reference object as known by the ITS test station is different from the location of the at least one reference object as determined by the SUT (0106).
7. As for claim 6, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Jha taught wherein the items of information characterizing objects that perception is to be reported comprise a list of one or more reference areas wherein presence of objects is to be reported (0042, the reference position. See also, 0052).
8. As for claim 7, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 6. In addition, Jha taught wherein the received ITS message comprises an indication as to whether objects are perceived by the SUT in a reference area of the list of one or more reference areas, the SUT being determined as malfunctioning in response to determining that a number of objects perceived by the SUT in the reference area is different from a number of objects in the reference area as known by the ITS test station (0253, where replacing the perceived region, after a match failure, implicitly teaches that the system was determined to be incorrect).
9. As for claim 10, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 2. In addition, Jha taught wherein the list of one or more reference objects comprises at least one reference stationary object present in the area deemed to be monitored by the SUT (0055, the reference point).
10. As for claim 12, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 10. In addition, Jha taught wherein the received ITS message comprises a reference to the at least one reference stationary object and location information of the at least one reference stationary object, the SUT being determined as malfunctioning in response to determining that the location of the at least one reference stationary object as determined by the SUT is not correct (0106, where the discrepancy teaches the not correct determination).
11. As for claim 13, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Jha taught identifying the area deemed to be monitored by the SUT, as a function of ITS messages previously received from the SUT (0026).
12. As for claim 18, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Jha taught a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions of a computer program for implementing each of the steps of the method (0314).
13. As for claim 19, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Jha taught an Intelligent Transport System, ITS, station, ITS-S, comprising a processing unit configured for carrying out each of the steps of the method (0314).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha, in view of Yuan, and in further view of Official Notice.
14. As for claim 8, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 2. However, Jha did not explicitly state wherein the list of one or more reference objects comprises at least one reference fake object not present in the area deemed to be monitored by the SUT. On the other hand, the examiner gives official notice that referencing/determining fake objects was well known and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Jha, to utilize detecting fake objects, in order to more efficiently determine when an area map is incorrect so that it can be corrected.
15. As for claim 9, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 8. However, Jha did not explicitly state wherein the behavior of the SUT is determined as being malicious in response to identifying a reference to the at least one reference fake object in the received ITS message. On the other hand, the examiner gives official notice that referencing/determining fake objects was well known and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Jha, to utilize detecting fake objects, in order to more efficiently determine when an area map is incorrect so that it can be corrected.
16. As for claim 11, it is rejection on the same basis as claim 10. However, Jha did not explicitly state wherein the SUT is determined as malfunctioning or as being malicious in response to determining that the received ITS message does not comprise any reference to the at least one reference stationary object. On the other hand, the examiner gives official notice that referencing/determining empty lists was well known and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Jha, to utilize detecting fake objects, in order to more efficiently determine when an area map is incorrect so that it can be corrected.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha, in view of Banjade.
17. With respect to claim 20, Jha taught message to transmit information in an Intelligent Transport System, ITS, comprising: a request to report perception of objects within an area deemed to be monitored by a receiving ITS station from an ITS test station, the request comprising items of information characterizing objects that perception is to be reported (0041 & 0042).
However, Jha did not explicitly state the receiving ITS station being configured to transmit a generated ITS message reporting the perception of objects as requested directly to a road side unit (RSU) which transmits the ITS message to the ITS test station. On the other hand, Banjade did teach the receiving ITS station being configured to transmit a generated ITS message reporting the perception of objects as requested directly to a road side unit (RSU) which transmits the ITS message to the ITS test station (0158). Both of the systems of Jha and Banjade are directed towards managing ITS systems and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Jha, to specifically utilize transmitting an ITS message to an RSU, as taught by Banjade, in order to ensure that each element has useful information towards managing object perception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights