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 filing on 9/01/2023. Applicant amended claims 1–4 and 6–10, and canceled claims 11–12. Claims 1–10 and 13 are pending and are examined below.
PRIORITY
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to DE102021201910A1, filed on 3/01/2021.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 5–8 are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claim 1: claim element “sensors of the first road user” lacks an article. Examiner suggests amending to: “one or more sensors,” “a plurality of sensors” or the like.
As to claim 2: claim elements “position,” “speed,” “direction,” and “trajectory” all lack an article.
As to claim 5: claim element “combinations” lacks an article. Examiner suggests amending to: “one or more combinations,” “a plurality of combinations” or the like.
As to claim 6: both instances of claim elements “the basis” lack antecedent basis.
As to claim 7:
“the accuracy” lacks antecedent basis.
“positioning variance” is unnecessarily repeated and it’s unclear whether they relate to the claimed second road user or whether those elements are separate.
The multiple “and/or’s” make the claim confusing to parse and appear to be unnecessary. Examiner suggests clarifying with affirmative “and’s” and “or’s” and using commas to delineate the desired claimed criterions.
As to claim 8: the multiple “and/or’s” make the claim confusing to parse and appear to be unnecessary. Examiner suggests clarifying with affirmative “and’s” and “or’s” and using commas to delineate the desired claimed criterions.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” which is coupled with functional language. Such claim limitations are: “received by means of vehicle-to-X communication” in claim 1 (with dependent claims 2–10).
Additionally, 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 limitations are: “detected by at least one capture device” in claim 1 (with dependent claims 2–10).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes:
means of vehicle-to-X communication
antenna 220 (PGPUB ¶ 44)
capture device
sensor system (PGPUB ¶ 19)
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the electronic control apparatus (200) claimed in preceding claims 11 and 12. Claims 11 and 12 have been canceled and therefore the claimed electronic control apparatus is omitted.
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
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:
capturing the object data, received by means of vehicle-to-X communication, for 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; 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 sensors of the first road user.
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 either:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering:
Capturing object data by means of vehicle-to-X communication
Claims 2–10 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 1–10 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1–10 are rejected under § 101.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C § 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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:
capturing the object data, received by means of vehicle-to-X communication, for 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. Examiner 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 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.).
As to claim 13, Schulz discloses an electronic control apparatus in a vehicle (“The object recognition itself and/or the object classification can take place … in the vehicle itself.” ¶ 6.).
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.
Claims 2–4 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 position and/or speed and/or direction of travel and/or 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.).
Schulz discloses: a method of protecting object data for collective perception, including at least the step of checking a plausibility of a state of an object described by received object data and sensor information, wherein the sensor information is determined using sensors of a first road user. Köstermann teaches: wherein a state of an object comprises a trajectory describing a current course of movement of the object.
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.).
Schulz discloses: a method of protecting object data for collective perception, including at least the step of checking a plausibility of a state of an object described by received object data and sensor information, wherein the sensor information is determined using sensors of a first road user. Köstermann teaches: wherein a state of an object comprises a trajectory describing a current course of movement of the object; and wherein the received object data are included in a collective perception message.
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.).
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 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 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.).
Schulz discloses: a method of protecting object data for collective perception, including at least the step of checking a plausibility of a state of an object described by received object data and sensor information, wherein the sensor information is determined using sensors of a first road user. Köstermann teaches: wherein a state of an object comprises a trajectory describing a current course of movement of the object; and wherein the received object data are included in a collective perception message. Avadhanam teaches: classifying a combination of a state of an object and the classification of an object as implausible when a probability of occurrence is below a limit value.
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 on the basis of 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 7–10 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 and/or an orientation variance of the accuracy with which the object is captured by the second road user and/or a positioning variance and/or an orientation variance of the second road user as such is/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.).
Schulz discloses: a method of protecting object data for collective perception, including at least the step of checking a plausibility of a state of an object described by received object data and sensor information, wherein the sensor information is determined using sensors of a first road user. Köstermann teaches: wherein a state of an object comprises a trajectory describing a current course of movement of the object; and wherein the received object data are included in a collective perception message. Avadhanam teaches: classifying a combination of a state of an object and the classification of an object as implausible when a probability of occurrence is below a limit value. 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.
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 and/or object data which cannot be checked for plausibility is/are discarded and/or corrected.
Nevertheless, Avadhanam teaches: wherein an object classified as implausible is/are 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.).
Schulz discloses: a method of protecting object data for collective perception, including at least the step of checking a plausibility of a state of an object described by received object data and sensor information, wherein the sensor information is determined using sensors of a first road user. Köstermann teaches: wherein a state of an object comprises a trajectory describing a current course of movement of the object; and wherein the received object data are included in a collective perception message. Avadhanam teaches: classifying a combination of a state of an object and the classification of an object as implausible when a probability of occurrence is below a limit value; and wherein an object classified as implausible is/are discarded.
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/are 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.)
As to claim 9, Schulz discloses: wherein information relating to the second road user and/or the infrastructure device is captured (“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.).
While the combination of Schulz, Köstermann, Avadhanam and Reimann 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., 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.
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.).
Schulz discloses: a method of protecting object data for collective perception, including at least the step of checking a plausibility of a state of an object described by received object data and sensor information, wherein the sensor information is determined using sensors of a first road user. Köstermann teaches: wherein a state of an object comprises a trajectory describing a current course of movement of the object; wherein the received object data are included in a collective perception message; and wherein at least one identifier for identifying a transmitter of the received object data is captured as information relating to the second road user.
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, Köstermann, Avadhanam and Reimann 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.
CONCLUSION
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