DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 2/06/2026. Applicant amended claims 1-2, 5-8 and 10; and canceled claims 9 and 13. Claims 1-8 and 10 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 2/06/2026 obviate the claim objections — accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim interpretation under § 112(f), Applicant’s amendments filed on 2/06/2026 obviate the claim interpretation under § 112(f) — accordingly, the claim interpretation under § 112(f) is withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 112(b), Applicant’s amendments filed on 2/06/2026 obviate the claim rejections under § 112(b) — accordingly, the claim rejections under § 112(b) are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 101, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 2/06/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant argues that the claims recite a judicial exception into a practical application and improve technology. Applicant submits that the claimed invention does not put forth a generic transmission but rather adds further structure that differentiates the claimed invention over generic approaches in regards to vehicle-to-X communication. Applicant argues that the claimed approach increases efficiency and safety of the system and the components by implementing the claimed approach in real time, in automated fashion and allowing for the plausibility of object data to be accurately determined.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, the argument pertaining to how the claim invention allegedly differentiates the claimed invention from other vehicle-to-X approaches constitutes a prior art argument — such has no bearing on 101 analysis. That is, “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination …. As made clear by the courts, the ‘‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.’” (MPEP 2106.05, I.)
Second, the claimed invention is not directed towards an improvement in technology. Respectfully, the alleged improvements put forth by the claimed invention are conclusory; i.e. a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Such cannot be considered an improvement to technology. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).) Rather, the claimed invention does not go beyond generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Electric Power Group1 is instructive — claim 1 is similar to Electric Power Group’s claimed invention which collects information, analyzes the collected information and outputs the results of the analysis. The Court in Electric Power Group held such to be patent ineligible. Additionally, the claimed invention uses a generic computer environment to carry out abstract ideas; such is a version of the Court’s “apply it” guidance in Electric Power Group.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 101 are maintained.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 2/06/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant argues that there would have been no reason to modify Schulz to include multiple communication paths because Schulz allegedly describes a vehicle-to-X communication system that relies on single paths. Applicant alleges that adding more paths would unduly complicate Schulz and increase the complexity and cost of the resultant system. Applicant concludes that any modification of Schulz to include the subject matter at issue would constitute improper hindsight reconstruction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are conclusory and not based on factual evidence rooted in the cited references. First, the assertion that Schulz’s communication system relies on single paths is incorrect – rather, the system uses multiple communication paths (“Individual vehicles are networked directly (vehicle to vehicle - V2V) and/or via a traffic infrastructure (V2X).” ¶ 11.). That is, V2V and V2X constitute different communication paths which transmit information. Accordingly, modifying Schulz to arrive at the claimed invention at issue would not constitute impermissible hindsight bias; such a modification would merely be an obvious tweak of Schulz to send certain information – i.e., object data and vehicle information – through the different communication pathways of Schulz. Indeed, it would have been obvious to try out of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., V2V and V2X communication paths) to arrive at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success to exploit the well-known advantages of both V2V and V2X and provide further redundancy in the case that one communication path fails.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims fail to pass the Alice/Mayo test for determining patent eligibility.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claim 1.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 1: Yes, the claim recites a process.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claim 1 is provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold.
1. A method of protecting object data for collective perception and execution by an electronic control apparatus of a first road user, of the method comprising:
from a first transmitter at a second road user or a second transmitter of an infrastructure device, transmitting a vehicle-to-X communication and receiving the communication at a receiver of a first road user, the vehicle-to-X-communication including object data;
capturing the object data, received from the vehicle-to-X communication, the object data describing an object detected by at least one capture device of the second road user and/or at least one capture device of an infrastructure device; and
checking a plausibility of a state of the object described by the received object data using map information and/or sensor information, wherein the sensor information is determined using one or more sensors of the first road user;
wherein information relating to the second road user and/or the infrastructure device is captured, and wherein the information is received via a further communication path which is different from the communication path of the received object data.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited. But for the additional elements, the claim limitation pertaining to checking a plausibility of a state of an object and determining sensor information are processes which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses performing judgments over obtained data. The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. As a result, the bolded limitations represent a mental process. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components — i.e., an electronic control apparatus, sensors — that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering:
from a first transmitter at a second road user or a second transmitter of an infrastructure device, transmitting a vehicle-to-X communication and receiving the communication at a receiver of a first road user, the vehicle-to-X-communication including object data
Here, note that a transmitter is a generic computing device through which an insignificant activity is carried out.
capturing object data by means of vehicle-to-X communication
wherein information relating to the second road user and/or the infrastructure device is captured, and wherein the information is received via a further communication path which is different from the communication path of the received object data.
Furthermore, claim 1 fails Step 2B because the claim does not provide an improvement in technology. Indeed, claim 1 is similar to Electric Power Group’s claimed invention which collects information, analyzes the collected information and outputs the results of the analysis. The Court in Electric Power Group held such to be patent ineligible. Additionally, the claimed invention uses a generic computer environment to carry out abstract ideas; such is a version of the Court’s “apply it” guidance in Electric Power Group.
Claims 2–8 and 10 depend from claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to additional mental steps:
the plausibility … is checked using the classification information;
combinations … are classified as implausible
wherein the plausibility is checked on the basis of a comparison
discarding or correcting an object classified as implausible and /or object data
or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data):
receiving information via further communication path
capturing at least one identifier
receiving the identifier on a further communication path
Claims 1–8 and 10 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1–8 and 10 are rejected under § 101.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz et al. (DE102018220018A1; “Schulz”)
As to claim 1, Schulz discloses a method of protecting object data for collective perception and execution by an electronic control apparatus of a first road user, of the method comprising:
from a first transmitter at a second road user or a second transmitter of an infrastructure device, transmitting a vehicle-to-X communication and receiving the communication at a receiver of a first road user, the vehicle-to-X-communication including object data (“Individual vehicles are networked directly (vehicle to vehicle - V2V) and/or via a traffic infrastructure (V2X).” ¶ 11. “The invention comprises an electronic control unit configured to receive data and/or information from a plurality of interconnected vehicles, wherein the data and/or information is acquired upon detection of objects by means of sensor systems of the vehicles.” ¶ 17. Note: From the context of the description, it is clear that V2V/V2X is required for the electronic control unit to receive detected object data from a second vehicle of the group of vehicles. Further note that V2V is a subset of V2X communication.))
capturing the object data, received from the vehicle-to-X communication, the object data describing an object detected by at least one capture device of a second road user and/or at least one capture device of an infrastructure device (“Individual vehicles are networked directly (vehicle to vehicle - V2V) and/or via a traffic infrastructure (V2X).” ¶ 11. “The invention comprises an electronic control unit configured to receive data and/or information from a plurality of interconnected vehicles, wherein the data and/or information is acquired upon detection of objects by means of sensor systems of the vehicles.” ¶ 17. Note: From the context of the description, it is clear that V2V/V2X is required for the electronic control unit to receive detected object data from a second vehicle of the group of vehicles.); and
checking a plausibility of a state of the object described by the received object data using map information and/or sensor information, wherein the sensor information is determined using one or more sensors of the first road user (“The plausibility of the data and/or information recorded by the individual vehicles when detecting objects is carried out by comparing the data and/or information recorded by different vehicles in order to determine consistent data and/or information and data and/or information that deviate from the consistent data and/or information.” ¶ 13.),
wherein information relating to the second road user and/or the infrastructure device is captured (See ¶¶ 11, 17.).
While Schulz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the information is received via a further communication path which is different from the communication path of the received object data, the claim limitation would have been obvious in view of at least Schulz. Namely, it would have been obvious to try out of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., Schulz’s V2V and V2X communication paths) to arrive at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try to send one type of information (e.g., object detection data) through one communication path (V2V or V2X) and then to send the other type of information through the other communication path. Such would exploit the well-known advantages of both V2V and V2X and provide further redundancy in the case that one communication path fails.
Claims 2–4 and 10 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz in view of Köstermann et al. (US20220105956A1; “Köstermann”).
As to claim 2, Schulz fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the state of the object comprises a position, a speed, a direction of travel, or a trajectory of the object; and
wherein the trajectory describes a temporally preceding course of movement and/or a current course of movement and/or a predicted course of movement of the object.
Nevertheless, Köstermann teaches:
wherein the state of the object comprises a trajectory of the object (“interpreted measurement data contain … a trajectory and/or the like of objects.” ¶ 41.);
wherein the trajectory describes a current course of movement of the object (See at least ¶ 41.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schulz to include the features of: wherein the state of the object comprises a trajectory of the object; and wherein the trajectory describes a current course of movement of the object, as taught by Köstermann, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for providing “an improved concept for verifying the communication of transportation vehicles.” (Köstermann, ¶ 15.)
As to claim 3, Schulz fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the received object data are included in a collective perception message.
Nevertheless, Köstermann teaches: wherein the received object data are included in a collective perception message (“The interpreted measurement data comprise … collective perception message (CPM).” ¶ 41.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schulz to include the feature of: wherein the received object data are included in a collective perception message, as taught by Köstermann, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is well-known and ordinary in the art as being a form of vehicle-to-X communication for sharing information in between vehicles.
As to claim 4, Schulz discloses: wherein the object data comprises classification information for describing a classification type of the detected object, and the plausibility of the state of the object described by the object data is checked using the classification information for describing a classification type of the object (“The information that is recorded and/or determined on the basis of the detection of the objects is … object recognition and/or object classification.” ¶ 6. “Plausibility checks for object recognition in the semantic map can be carried out.” ¶ 22.).
As to claim 10, Schulz fails to explicitly disclose: wherein at least one identifier for identifying a transmitter of the received object data is captured as information relating to the second road user and/or the infrastructure device.
Nevertheless, Köstermann teaches: wherein at least one identifier for identifying a transmitter of the received object data is captured as information relating to the second road user (“The identifier allows an identification and assignment of the message. Particularly if the method proposed herein is used in a plurality of transportation vehicles in a fleet, it is thereby possible to prevent a transportation vehicle in the fleet from validating the environment information multiple times and/or more often than is required.” ¶ 22.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schulz to include the feature of: wherein at least one identifier for identifying a transmitter of the received object data is captured as information relating to the second road user, as taught by Köstermann, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for identifying a vehicle and preventing erroneous validation of a vehicle communication (See at least Köstermann, ¶ 22.).
While the combination of Schulz and Köstermann fails to explicitly disclose wherein the information is received via a further communication path which is different from the communication path of the received object data, the claim limitation would have been obvious in view of at least Schulz and Köstermann. Namely, it would have been obvious to try out of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., V2V and V2X communication paths) to arrive at the claim limitation with a reasonable expectation of success. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try to send one type of information (e.g., object detection data) through one communication path (V2V or V2X) and then to send the other type of information (e.g., Köstermann’s identifier) through the other communication path. Such would exploit the well-known advantages of both V2V and V2X and provide further redundancy in the case that one communication path fails.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz in view of Köstermann as applied to claim 4 – further in view of Avadhanam et al. (US20220012988A1; “Avadhanam”).
As to claim 5, the combination of Schulz and Köstermann fails to explicitly disclose: wherein one or more combinations of the state of the object and the classification of the object which are not possible and/or which have a probability of occurrence equal to or below a limit value are classified as implausible in the plausibility check.
Nevertheless, Avadhanam teaches: wherein one or more combinations of the state of the object and the classification of the object which have a probability of occurrence equal to or below a limit value are classified as implausible in the plausibility check (“A neural network that outputs a measure of confidence for each object detection. Such a confidence value may be interpreted as a probability, or as providing a relative “weight” of each detection compared to other detections …. The system may set a threshold value for the confidence and consider only the detections exceeding the threshold value as true positive detections.” ¶ 111.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schulz and Köstermann to include the feature of: wherein combinations of the state of the object and the classification of the object which have a probability of occurrence equal to or below a limit value are classified as implausible in the plausibility check, as taught by Avadhanam, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for reducing false positives of object detection, thereby enhancing safety and optimizing object detection. (See at least Avadhanam, ¶ 111.)
As to claim 6, Schulz discloses: wherein the plausibility is checked based upon a comparison of the state of the object described by the received object data with the sensor information captured using the sensors of the first road user (“The plausibility of the data and/or information recorded by the individual vehicles when detecting objects is carried out by comparing the data and/or information recorded by different vehicles in order to determine consistent data and/or information and data and/or information that deviate from the consistent data and/or information.” ¶ 13.).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz in view of Köstermann and in view of Avadhanam as applied to claim 6 – further in view of Reimann et al. (US20210383689A1; “Reimann”).
As to claim 7, the combination of Schulz, Köstermann and Avadhanam fails to explicitly disclose: wherein a positioning variance or an orientation variance of an accuracy with which the object is captured by the second road user are used as an abort criterion for the comparison.
Nevertheless, Reimann teaches: wherein a position variance of the accuracy with which the object is captured by the second road user is used as an abort criterion for the comparison (“An assignment of the first and second meta information can be rejected if this discrepancy is greater than the tolerance range. The tolerance range can be selected in such a manner that it is plausible for object information with discrepancies which are less than the tolerance range to relate to the same object. The tolerance range is one meter or half a meter, for example.” ¶ 34.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schulz, Köstermann and Avadhanam to include the feature of: wherein a position variance of the accuracy with which the object is captured by the second road user is used as an abort criterion for the comparison, as taught by Reimann, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for increasing the plausibility that object information relates to an existing object. (See at least Reimann, ¶ 34.)
As to claim 8, the combination of Schulz and Köstermann fails to explicitly disclose: wherein an object classified as implausible or object data which cannot be checked for plausibility are discarded or corrected.
Nevertheless, Avadhanam teaches: wherein an object classified as implausible is discarded (“A neural network that outputs a measure of confidence for each object detection. Such a confidence value may be interpreted as a probability, or as providing a relative “weight” of each detection compared to other detections …. The system may set a threshold value for the confidence and consider only the detections exceeding the threshold value as true positive detections.” ¶ 111.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schulz and Köstermann to include the feature of: wherein an object classified as implausible is discarded, as taught by Avadhanam, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for reducing false positives of object detection, thereby enhancing safety and optimizing object detection. (See at least Avadhanam, ¶ 111.)
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon pertains to Applicant’s disclosure. "Revisiting message generation strategies for collective perception in connected and automated driving"2 discloses: transmitting object data (via CPM) and information relating to a second road user and/or infrastructure device (via CAM) through different communication paths (“The Cooperative Awareness (CA) service enables vehicles to report their position and driving dynamics to others through Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAM). Similarly, the CPM [Collective Perception Message] carries objects lists, the vehicle’s sensor configuration and other data fields.” Page 46. “Both CA and CP services are enabled. The CA service operates on the Control Channel (CCH) and the CP service on the Service Channel 1 (SCH1) of the 5.9GHz frequency band.” Page 49.).
This action is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
1 Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
2 Delooz, Quentin, Andreas Festag, and Alexey Vinel. "Revisiting message generation strategies for collective perception in connected and automated driving." In Proc. VEHICULAR, pp. 46-52. 2020.
Prosecution Insights