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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 11, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities: "first object comprises at least one of a vehicle and a vulnerable road user (VRU)” is unclear. A ‘first object’ is singular, so it is not clear to the examiner how the first object can consist two of two different objects. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: in the limitation “the method according to claim 4, wherein the first zone is divided into a plurality of sub-zones according to a distance from the second object,” what is the 'distance' from the second object between. Is it the distance between the first zone and the second object? The distance between the second object and the first object? Or the distance between the sub-zones and the second object? It is unclear. The examiner has interpreted the distance to be from the zone edge to the second object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106 and 2106.03 for guidance. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. “A computer program” as recited is not patent eligible subject matter because it is “software/data per se”. A recommended remedy for claiming a computer program is to have it embodied within a “non-transitory” computer readable medium. See also USPTO Published 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance.
Claim 1, 11, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106 and 2106.03 for guidance.
In regarding claims 1 (and corresponding independent claims 11 and 20):
Step 1:
Claims 1 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A: Claims 1 is directed a method/system for: threat notification.
Prong 1:
The limitation of receiving an image indicating a first object, wherein the first object comprises at least one of a vehicle and a vulnerable road user (VRU); as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed in a mental process. For example, “receiving an image” in the context of this claim can be considered looking at an image or a scene.
Similarly, the limitation of detecting a first threat associated with the first object based on processing of the image; and sending, in response to detection of the first threat, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process relationships. For example, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses looking at a scene and seeing if there is a threat.
Similarly, the limitation of a notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and a second object associated with the first object, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – an electronic device, processor, memory (claim 11), is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component / software application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processor, machine-readable medium.
The additional hardware/software (e.g., processor, machine-readable medium) perform only basic function, which would be common to every additional hardware/software (e.g., processor, machine-readable medium).
Thus, the recited generic additional hardware/software (e.g., processor, machine-readable medium) perform no more than their basic computer function. In the court of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl, the court cites a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit,” for example, —is purely functional and generic (page 16). In the specification of instant application, processor, machine-readable medium are general computer components. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic computer are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
The examiner would like to note that claims 2-10 and 12-19 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and are therefore not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Barrera et al (US 20240246479 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barrera et al teaches a method for threat notification, comprising (Para 91, methodology for a vehicle being operated autonomously to prevent an accident between a pedestrian and a nearby vehicle (threat is accident of car, see Fig 11). See Para 6 regarding processor and memory performing method):
receiving an image indicating a first object (Fig 11 and Para 92, At 1110, an AV (e.g., vehicle 102, a first vehicle) can gather information regarding a road (e.g., road 205) being driven by the AV, wherein the AV can receive information (e.g., digital imagery, data) from one or more devices, cameras, sensors, etc. (e.g., sensors/cameras 150A-n)),
wherein the first object comprises at least one of a vehicle (Para 94 Fig 11 and 1130, from the gathered information, a nearby vehicle (e.g., vehicle 125, a second vehicle) can be identified, e.g., in an adjacent lane (e.g., LANE 2) to the AV (which can be located in LANE 1). Further, the direction of motion and/or velocity of the nearby vehicle can be determined (e.g., by vehicle detection component 163)) and a vulnerable road user (VRU) (Para 93 Fig 11 and 1120, further, from the gathered information, a pedestrian (e.g., pedestrian 120) can be identified (e.g., by pedestrian component 158) crossing or about to cross the road via a crosswalk or a random location on the road. Furthermore, the direction and/or speed of motion of the pedestrian can be determined from which it can be established how long it will take for the pedestrian to cross the road);
detecting a first threat associated with the first object based on processing of the image (Para 95-97 and Fig 11, at 1150, based on the respectively determined current and future locations of the nearby vehicle and the pedestrian, a risk of collision between the pedestrian and the nearby vehicle can be determined (e.g., by accident component 165). As previously described (per TABLES 1 and 2) different levels of risk can be assessed: SAFE (NO RISK) when the locations, distances, velocities of the pedestrian and nearby vehicle indicates zero likelihood of collision; MODERATE whereby the pedestrian is entering a situation of potential collision but the opportunity still exists for averting action (e.g., nearby vehicle brakes, pedestrian hurries through crosswalk, and suchlike); HIGH is where the respective velocities, positions, etc., indicate that a collision has a high probability of occurring);
and sending, in response to detection of the first threat, a notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and a second object associated with the first object (Para 95-97 and Fig 11, at 1170, in the event of NO, neither the driver has seen the pedestrian or the pedestrian has seen the driver, the methodology 1100 can advance to 1190, wherein a warning (e.g., by warning component 168) can be generated for one or both of the pedestrian or the driver. As previously described, the warning can entail activation of a car horn, flashing headlights, warning signal transmitted to a phone, etc., (e.g., by warning component 168 in conjunction with devices component 149 or via communication component 170 and I/O component 116). The warning can be continued until attention of the pedestrian or the driver is obtained).
Regarding claim 2, Barrera et al teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein detecting the first threat associated with the first object comprises: tracking the first object to determine trajectory data of the first object, wherein the trajectory data comprises location, speed, and traveling direction of the first object; and determining the first threat based on the trajectory data of the first object (Para 92-95, Fig 11 1140, based on respective factors such as the direction of motion and velocity of the nearby vehicle and the pedestrian, predictions can be made regarding respective future locations of the pedestrian and the vehicle (e.g., by any combination of pedestrian component 158, vehicle detection component 163, and/or accident component 165). i.e. image data of the first and second object (VRU and vehicle) is tracked to determine the location, speed, and direction, and a threat (risk) is determined based off of this motion data in Fig 11 1150).
Regarding claim 3, Barrera et al teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein detecting the first threat associated with the first object comprises: marking an identity (ID) of the first object in the image, and wherein sending the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object comprises: sending, based on a mapping between the ID of the first object in the image and an ID of the first object in a communication layer (Para 89-Para 93, any suitable communication technology can be utilized to transmit the warning signal. In the example shown in FIG. 10, a warning signal 1030 is being transmitted via BLUETOOTH®. In an embodiment, generation of the warning signal 1030 can be such that the warning signal 1030 is directed towards the pedestrian of interest. For example, as shown in FIG. 10, more than one pedestrian can be in the vicinity of the vehicle 105, such as pedestrians 120, 120P, and 120R. To prevent pedestrians (e.g., pedestrians 120P and 120R) from unduly receiving warning notifications (e.g., warning screen 1020) on their own portable devices, advantage can be taken of the location knowledge (e.g., via GPS) of the portable device they may be carrying. For example, pedestrians 120P and 120R are respectively carrying devices 1010P and 1010R. i.e. the pedestrian is detected and specifically recognized in the image (pedestrian in danger is 120), and the notification is sent based on a mapping between the ID of the first object (pedestrian 120) and an ID of the first object in a communication layer (advantage can be taken of the GPS location knowledge of the portable device that is being carried by the pedestrian), is clearly mapped to specific pedestrian as is differentiated from 120 versus 120P and 120R),
the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object (Para 66, as described herein, the warning component 168 can also generate a warning(s) via communications technology configured to interact between the vehicle 102 and a device (e.g., a cellphone) being carried by the pedestrian 120 and/or onboard the vehicle 125. The communications technology interaction can be undertaken via the communication component 170. The communication component 170 can be configured to establish and conduct communications with other vehicles on the road, external entities and systems, etc., e.g., via I/O 116. i.e. both the first object and the second object associated with the first object are notified of the potential danger/threat of a collision).
Regarding claims 11-13, claims 11-13 rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-3 above, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
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.
Claim(s) 4-9 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrera et al (US 20240246479 A1) in view of Beauchamp et al (US 20210287529 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Barrera et al does not teach, the method according to claim 1, wherein detecting the first threat associated with the first object comprises: determining, in a first application scenario, a first zone where the first threat exists, the first zone being associated with the second object, wherein the first zone is in a traveling direction of the second object and is a sector-shaped zone centered on the second object, and wherein the first zone is a collision zone.
In a similar field of endeavor, Beauchamp et al teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein detecting the first threat associated with the first object comprises: determining, in a first application scenario, a first zone where the first threat exists, the first zone being associated with the second object, wherein the first zone is in a traveling direction of the second object and is a sector-shaped zone centered on the second object, and wherein the first zone is a collision zone (Fig 26 and Para 175, method for collision avoidance between VRUs and vehicles, wherein the method comprises a set of rules for providing a danger notification that may relate to a proximity range shaped like an ellipse. When the vehicle is notified of a danger, the danger notification may include a prescription for collision avoidance including (dx/dt.sup.2 braking-terms and (dy/dt.sup.2 swerving-terms in the predicted spatiotemporal trajectory of the notified UE terminal belonging to the vehicle, which relates approximately to the shape of an ellipse on the road. i.e. see Fig 27 which demonstrates the sector-shaped zone which is in the traveling direction of the second object (towards the front of the car where it is moving) and the zone is a collision zone centered on a moving threat (the vehicle), also see 175 - a moderate or medium level warning may be given to the VRU and/or the vehicle may be controlled to slow down or to prepare for slowing down).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Barrera et al (US 20240246479 A1) in view of Beauchamp et al (US 20210287529 A1) so that detecting the first threat associated with the first object comprises: determining, in a first application scenario, a first zone where the first threat exists, the first zone being associated with the second object. Doing so could provide danger notifications pertaining to the field of road safety, and pertaining to collision avoidance before accidents happen (Beauchamp et al., Abst).
Regarding claim 5, Barrera et al does not teach, the method according to claim 4, wherein the first zone is divided into a plurality of sub-zones according to a distance from the second object, and wherein sending the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object comprises: sending, according to a detection that the first threat is in a corresponding sub-zone, a corresponding notification to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object.
In a similar field of endeavor, Beauchamp et al teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the first zone is divided into a plurality of sub-zones according to a distance from the second object, and wherein sending the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object comprises: sending, according to a detection that the first threat is in a corresponding sub-zone, a corresponding notification to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object (Fig 26 and Para 175, the zones are divided into a plurality of sub-zones 1-9, and as is stated in Para 175: the danger notification may indicate that level 5 or 6 may be a moderate threat to the VRU. In these embodiments, a moderate or medium level warning may be given to the VRU and/or the vehicle may be controlled to slow down or to prepare for slowing down. i.e. the notification regarding the first threat is sent according to a detection that a threat is in a corresponding sub-zone (level or zone 5-6 may be a moderate threat to the VRU)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Barrera et al (US 20240246479 A1) in view of Beauchamp et al (US 20210287529 A1) so that the first zone is divided into a plurality of sub-zones according to a distance from the second object, and wherein sending the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object comprises: sending, according to a detection that the first threat is in a corresponding sub-zone, a corresponding notification to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object. Doing so could provide danger notifications pertaining to the field of road safety, and pertaining to collision avoidance before accidents happen (Beauchamp et al., Abst).
Regarding claim 6, Barrera et al does not teach, the method according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of sub-zones comprise a first sub-zone, a second sub-zone, and a third sub-zone, and wherein a distance from a boundary between the first sub-zone and the second sub-zone to the second object is determined according to a braking distance of the second object, and a distance from a boundary between the second sub-zone and the third sub-zone to the second object is determined according to a speed and a reaction time of the second object.
In a similar field of endeavor, Beauchamp et al teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of sub-zones comprise a first sub-zone, a second sub-zone, and a third sub-zone, and wherein a distance from a boundary between the first sub-zone and the second sub-zone to the second object is determined according to a braking distance of the second object, and a distance from a boundary between the second sub-zone and the third sub-zone to the second object is determined according to a speed and a reaction time of the second object (Para 175 and Fig 26, the method for collision avoidance between VRUs and vehicles, wherein the method comprises a set of rules for providing a danger notification that may relate to a proximity range shaped like an ellipse. When the vehicle is notified of a danger, the danger notification may include a prescription for collision avoidance including (dx/dt.sup.2 braking-terms and (dy/dt.sup.2 swerving-terms in the predicted spatiotemporal trajectory of the notified UE terminal belonging to the vehicle, which relates approximately to the shape of an ellipse on the road. Since the capacity to brake is higher than the capacity to swerve (e.g., μ.sub.x>μ.sub.y), the predicted spatiotemporal trajectory of the notified UE terminal belonging to the vehicle may exhibit a higher trajectory probability along the direction of driving in order to maintain vehicle control, and a progressively lower trajectory probability transversally given the standard deviations (σ) for t.sub.r, μ.sub.x and, μ.sub.y. Therefore, according to one aspect of the described technology, the proximity range may have the shape of an ellipse, wherein the major axis of the ellipse is coincident with the predicted spatiotemporal trajectory of the notified UE terminal belonging to the vehicle. This two-dimensional gradient for the trajectory probability may relate to a collision-probability assessment and/or Confidence factor, within a PathPrediction danger notification. i.e. there are at least 3 sub-zones as can be seen in the figure and the distance from the boundary of each sub-zone to the vehicle is determined according to a braking ability of the vehicle, and also the boundary between subzones is determined based on a spatiotemporal trajectory and reaction time of the vehicle (see more details in Para 134-146)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Barrera et al (US 20240246479 A1) in view of Beauchamp et al (US 20210287529 A1) so that the plurality of sub-zones comprise a first sub-zone, a second sub-zone, and a third sub-zone, and wherein a distance from a boundary between the first sub-zone and the second sub-zone to the second object is determined according to a braking distance of the second object, and a distance from a boundary between the second sub-zone and the third sub-zone to the second object is determined according to a speed and a reaction time of the second object. Doing so could provide danger notifications pertaining to the field of road safety, and pertaining to collision avoidance before accidents happen (Beauchamp et al., Abst).
Regarding claim 7, Barrera et al does not teach, the method according to claim 6, wherein sending the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object comprises: sending, in response to detection that the first threat is in the first sub-zone, a notification of a first urgency level to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object; sending, in response to detection that the first threat is in the second sub-zone, a notification of a second urgency level to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object; and sending, in response to detection that the first threat is in the third sub-zone, a notification of a third urgency level to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object, wherein urgency degrees of the first urgency level, the second urgency level, and the third urgency level descend gradually.
In a similar field of endeavor, Beauchamp et al teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein sending the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object comprises: sending, in response to detection that the first threat is in the first sub-zone, a notification of a first urgency level to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object; sending, in response to detection that the first threat is in the second sub-zone, a notification of a second urgency level to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object; and sending, in response to detection that the first threat is in the third sub-zone, a notification of a third urgency level to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object, wherein urgency degrees of the first urgency level, the second urgency level, and the third urgency level descend gradually (Fig 26 and Para 175, this two-dimensional gradient for the trajectory probability may relate to a collision-probability assessment and/or Confidence factor, within a PathPrediction danger notification. In some embodiments, the danger notification may be different depending on the distance (or proximity range) between the VRU and the vehicle. In level 1, the distance between the vehicle and the VRU is farthest where the danger notification may indicate that there is a relatively low risk of collision. In level 9, the distance between the vehicle and the VRU is closest where the danger notification may indicate that there is a very high risk of collision. In some embodiments, the danger notification may indicate that levels 5-9 may be more dangerous than levels 1-4, and the VRU may be appropriately warned and/or the vehicle may be controlled to slow down or stop. In some embodiments, the danger notification may indicate that level 8 or 9 may be extremely dangerous. In these embodiments, the vehicle may be immediately stopped and/or the VRU may be alerted with an extreme danger. In some embodiments, the danger notification may indicate that level 1 or 2 may not be an immediate threat to the VRU. In these embodiments, a low risk warning may be given to the VRU and/or the vehicle. In some embodiments, the danger notification may indicate that level 5 or 6 may be a moderate threat to the VRU. In these embodiments, a moderate or medium level warning may be given to the VRU and/or the vehicle may be controlled to slow down or to prepare for slowing down. i.e. for the at least three different sub-zones, a notification of a threat based on the corresponding sub-zone has a corresponding urgency to the sub-zone, and the urgency levels descend gradually from 3-1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Barrera et al (US 20240246479 A1) in view of Beauchamp et al (US 20210287529 A1) so that sending the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object comprises: sending, in response to detection that the first threat is in the first sub-zone, a notification of a first urgency level to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object, and so on for the second and third sub-zone. Doing so could provide danger notifications pertaining to the field of road safety, and pertaining to collision avoidance before accidents happen (Beauchamp et al., Abst).
Regarding claim 8, Barrera et al does not teach, the method according to claim 1, wherein detecting the first threat associated with the first object comprises: determining, in a second application scenario, a second zone associated with a road, the second zone having the first threat indicating a threatening road participant, wherein the second zone is a monitoring zone, and the first threat comprises at least one of a large vehicle and a speeding vehicle,
and wherein sending the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object comprises: sending, in response to detection of the first threat, the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object located in the second zone.
In a similar field of endeavor, Beauchamp et al teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein detecting the first threat associated with the first object comprises: determining, in a second application scenario, a second zone associated with a road, the second zone having the first threat indicating a threatening road participant, wherein the second zone is a monitoring zone, and the first threat comprises at least one of a large vehicle and a speeding vehicle (Fig 27 and Para 176, collision avoidance between VRUs and vehicles, wherein the method comprises a set of rules for providing a danger notification that may relate to a proximity range shaped like an ensemble of n concatenated ellipses, wherein smaller ellipses relate to higher collision-probability assessments. According to one aspect of the described technology, the dimensional safety margin M may relate to a collision-probability assessment and/or a Confidence factor, such that if the dimensional safety margin M is set at a small value, the probability of collision will be higher. In the illustration of FIG. 18, the proximity range R (212) of the first VRU (202) is smaller than the proximity range R (211) of the second VRU (201), with respect to the same vehicle (301). Therefore, the proximity range R (212) may be labelled as a relatively unsafe close approach between VRU (202) and vehicle (301) at future time t, as compared to the moderate close approach between VRU (201) and vehicle (301) at a different future time t. The communications server (10), acting as a cloud-component of a collision-avoidance system (60), may then implement the provision of the danger notification including a prescription for collision avoidance to VRU (202), and of a warning message to VRU (201), and of a prescription for applying brakes to slow down or to stop for vehicle (301). Other danger notification may be implemented depending on the road context in order to optimize the collision avoidance. i.e. determining a zone associated with the road, which has a first threat (vehicle) that is threatening a road participant(s) 202, and is a monitoring zone (zones 1-9 are monitored for presence of VRUs). The vehicle is moving at a speed which is calculated to be at risk for the VRUs (see Para 134-135)),
and wherein sending the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object associated with the first object comprises: sending, in response to detection of the first threat, the notification about the first threat to at least one of the first object and the second object located in the second zone (Fig 27 and Para 176, collision avoidance between VRUs and vehicles, wherein the method comprises a set of rules for providing a danger notification that may relate to a proximity range shaped like an ensemble of n concatenated ellipses, wherein smaller ellipses relate to higher collision-probability assessments. […] the proximity range R (212) of the first VRU (202) is smaller than the proximity range R (211) of the second VRU (201), with respect to the same vehicle (301). Therefore, the proximity range R (212) may be labelled as a relatively unsafe close approach between VRU (202) and vehicle (301) at future time t, as compared to the moderate close approach between VRU (201) and vehicle (301) at a different future time t. The communications server (10), acting as a cloud-component of a collision-avoidance system (60), may then implement the provision of the danger notification including a prescription for collision avoidance to VRU (202), and of a warning message to VRU (201), and of a prescription for applying brakes to slow down or to stop for vehicle (301). Other danger notification may be implemented depending on the road context in order to optimize the collision avoidance. i.e. sending the notification to the first and second (VRU 202 and vehicle 301) regarding the threat).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Barrera et al (US 20240246479 A1) in view of Beauchamp et al (US 20210287529 A1) so that detecting the first threat associated with the first object comprises: determining, in a second application scenario, a second zone associated with a road, the second zone having the first threat indicating a threatening road participant. Doing so could provide danger notifications pertaining to the field of road safety, and pertaining to collision avoidance before accidents happen (Beauchamp et al., Abst).
Regarding claim 9, Barrera et al does not teach, the method according to claim 8, wherein the second object comprises a vehicle, and the method further comprises: sending the notification to a VRU different from the first object and the second object, wherein the VRU is located in the second zone.
In a similar field of endeavor, Beauchamp et al teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the second object comprises a vehicle, and the method further comprises: sending the notification to a VRU different from the first object and the second object, wherein the VRU is located in the second zone (Fig 27 and Para 176, collision avoidance between VRUs and vehicles, wherein the method comprises a set of rules for providing a danger notification that may relate to a proximity range shaped like an ensemble of n concatenated ellipses, wherein smaller ellipses relate to higher collision-probability assessments. According to one aspect of the described technology, the dimensional safety margin M may relate to a collision-probability assessment and/or a Confidence factor, such that if the dimensional safety margin M is set at a small value, the probability of collision will be higher. In the illustration of FIG. 18, the proximity range R (212) of the first VRU (202) is smaller than the proximity range R (211) of the second VRU (201), with respect to the same vehicle (301). Therefore, the proximity range R (212) may be labelled as a relatively unsafe close approach between VRU (202) and vehicle (301) at future time t, as compared to the moderate close approach between VRU (201) and vehicle (301) at a different future time t. The communications server (10), acting as a cloud-component of a collision-avoidance system (60), may then implement the provision of the danger notification including a prescription for collision avoidance to VRU (202), and of a warning message to VRU (201), and of a prescription for applying brakes to slow down or to stop for vehicle (301). Other danger notification may be implemented depending on the road context in order to optimize the collision avoidance. i.e. sending the notification to a VRU (201) different from the first object (VRU 202) and the second object (vehicle 301), wherein the VRU is located in the zone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Barrera et al (US 20240246479 A1) in view of Beauchamp et al (US 20210287529 A1) so that the method comprises sending the notification to a VRU different from the first object and the second object, wherein the VRU is located in the second zone. Doing so could provide danger notifications pertaining to the field of road safety, and pertaining to collision avoidance before accidents happen (Beauchamp et al., Abst).
Regarding claims 14-19, claims 14-19 rejected for the same reasons as claims 4-9 above, respectively.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrera et al (US 20240246479 A1) in view of Nordbruch (US 20210090439 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Barrera et al does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the image is captured by at least one of a roadside unit (RSU) and a sensor of the second object, and preprocessed to indicate the first object.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nordbruch teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the image is captured by at least one of a roadside unit (RSU) and a sensor of the second object, and preprocessed to indicate the first object (Para 102-104 and 181-182, device 201, first and second video camera 413, 415 and wireless communication interface 423 presently form for example an infrastructure 425 designed to monitor area 411. i.e. the image is captured and processed by a roadside unit to detect objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Barrera et al (US 20240246479 A1) in view of Nordbruch (US 20210090439 A1) so that the image is captured by at least one of a roadside unit (RSU) and a sensor of the second object. Doing so would provide a way for efficiently warning a vulnerable road use (Para 6, Nordbruch).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20240179492 A1
US 20240005180 A1
US 20230209476 A1
US 20220388505 A1
US 20210183244 A1
US 12522247 B2
P. Teixeira, S. Sargento, P. Rito, M. Luís and F. Castro, "A Sensing, Communication and Computing Approach for Vulnerable Road Users Safety," in IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 4914-4930, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3235863.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK PETER KRAYNAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/JACK PETER KRAYNAK/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668