DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/29/2023, 02/28/2024, 11/22/2024, and 03/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on November 29, 2023.
Claims 1-21 and 23-25 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-21 and 23-25 are currently rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the CPM comprises a data element, Perceived Object Container, configured to contain information.” It is unclear whether the CPM comprises both a data element and a Perceived Object Container, or if the data element itself is the Perceived Object Container. Should the latter interpretation be intended, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation to recite language reflecting that the data element is or includes a Perceived Object Container. For purposes of prior art examination, the limitation shall be interpreted by the Examiner to mean that the data element is intended to be a Perceived Object Container.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 recites the following limitation: “if the safety-critical level of the detected object is higher than the corresponding safety-critical level threshold.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (e.g., “if”) requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. If the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition happening, then the contingent step is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Sheinfeld Appeal No. 2018-007091 (PTAB 2019) at *13; Ex Parte Vdovjak 2018-007087 (PTAB 2019) at 18; Ex parte Ionescu 2018-002662 (PTAB 2018) at *4; Ex parte Shier 2017-011168 (PTAB 2019) at *23; and Ex parte Blight 2017-006004 (PTAB 2018) at *12 (supporting the interpretation that “upon” limitations are conditional).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an analytical module,” “a safety-critical categorization module,” and “a communication module” recited in claim 17.
Structure is provided for these modules as being components of a fixed road-side entity 120, see page 14 of the instant specification and Fig. 1. The fixed road-side entity is a road side unit (RSU), see page 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0126421).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for transmitting a Collective Perception Message, CPM, the method being intended for an Intelligent Transport System, ITS, comprising at least one originating ITS station, ITS-S, the method comprising the following steps, at the at least one originating ITS-S:
transmitting a CPM reporting information related to at least one object detected within an area monitored by the originating ITS-S; (Zhang ¶ 8 discloses “The computer 155 can transmit the area map via a communications module 150 to one or more vehicles 105 in the area proximate to the infrastructure element 140 [i.e., an area monitored by an originating station]” including “a packetized message ... about one or more objects.” The processors of Zhang perform object classification and recognition, see at least ¶¶ 6 and 36, wherein the classification is performed using a deep neural network; therefore, the infrastructure communications and control system 100 is an intelligent transport system (ITS), and the infrastructure element 140 is an ITS station (ITS-S). See Fig. 2. Further, the transmitted area map in the form of a packeted message is a collective perception message (CPM) in accordance with the definition provided on page 2 of the instant specification describing the CPMs to be information transmitted through the transport system. See ¶ 18 disclosing V2I and V2V communication.)
wherein the CPM reporting information comprises a safety- critical categorization information, indicating whether the detected object is critical for the safety of the monitored area. (Zhang ¶ 6 discloses using a processor to “assign respective priorities to data about each of a plurality of objects based on a collision severity and a classification of each of the objects [i.e., categorization information],” see the monitored area depicted in Fig. 2, wherein “The computer 155 can transmit the area map via a communications module 150 to one or more vehicles 105 in the area proximate to the infrastructure element 140” including “transmission of a packeted message [i.e., CPM]” including “data about one or more objects” for objects having higher and lower priorities, see ¶ 8. Also see ¶ 36 disclosing objects with higher priority [i.e., categorized as safety-critical].)
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the detected object is reported individually when the detected object is categorized as critical for the safety of the monitored area. (Zhang ¶ 6 discloses assigning “respective priorities to data about each of a plurality of objects [i.e., priorities of objects reported individually] based on a collision severity and a classification of each of the objects,” wherein the objects are detected, see 15, and “the computer 155 can prioritize data about respective objects to provide data about higher priority objects before data about objects with relatively lower priority(ies.),” see ¶ 8. Also see ¶ 36 disclosing objects with higher priority [i.e., categorized as critical].)
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein previously to the transmitting step, the method comprises, when the detected object is not categorized as critical for the safety of the monitored area:
determining whether the detected object may be reported with at least one another detected object not categorized as critical for the safety of the monitored area thereby forming a group of detected objects, according to predefined grouping rules; (Zhang ¶ 36 discloses that “a police car, ambulance, fire truck, etc., is assigned an initial priority of 5, other vehicles are assigned an initial priority of 1,” which is an example of predefined grouping rules, and determining “whether information about each of the objects identified in the block 405 can be included in a single packet 300, or whether an aggregate size of the data for all of the objects together, e.g., respective payload segments 310 for each object, are larger than a maximum packet 300 payload size [i.e., determining whether the detected object may be reported with another detected object not categorized as critical]” see ¶ 35)
wherein the CPM reporting information related to the detected object is reported within said group, according to the determining step. (Zhang ¶ 18 discloses that computer 110 may be configured for vehicle-to-vehicle communication, wherein the computer 110 generates data about a detected object from sensor data, see ¶ 28. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that vehicle-to-vehicle communication indicates data sharing, and thereby reporting the detected object, within a group)
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein previously to the transmitting step, the method comprises:
determining the safety-critical categorization information of the detected object; (Zhang ¶ 36 discloses “an object recognized as an on-duty emergency vehicle”)
determining at least one another detected object with which the detected object may be reported according to predefined grouping rules, (Zhang Fig. 3 depicts a message 300 having payload segments, wherein each payload segment includes object data, depicting data from one object and another object to be reported in a single message 300, such that “respective segments 310 for the objects identified in the block 405 are placed into a buffer or data structure included in the computer 155 according to priorities determined as described with respect to the block 420, 430, until a maximum payload of a message 300 is reached,” see ¶ 44)
wherein the at least one another detected object is associated with a safety-critical categorization information identical to the determined safety- critical categorization information of the detected object. (Zhang ¶ 44 discloses “Within objects having a same priority level [i.e., identical safety-critical categorization information], an order can be randomly determined”)
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein previously to the transmitting step, the method comprises:
determining the safety-critical categorization information of the detected object, wherein the safety-critical categorization information comprises a safety-critical level; (Zhang ¶ 36 discloses that “an object recognized as an on-duty emergency vehicle, e.g., a police car, ambulance, fire truck, etc., is assigned an initial priority of 5 [i.e., a safety-critical level]”)
determining whether the safety-critical level of the detected object is higher than a corresponding safety-critical level threshold; (Zhang ¶ 46 discloses “the computer 155 could be programmed, upon performing multiple iterations of the process 400, to include only objects of a specified priority or higher, e.g., 3 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5 [i.e., higher than a priority threshold of 3]”)
if the safety-critical level of the detected object is higher than the corresponding safety-critical level threshold, decreasing a minimum time elapsing between two consecutive CPM generation events. (Zhang ¶ 46 discloses “data about highest priority objects are transmitted [i.e., CPM generation event] most often, but also that data about all objects is transmitted on at least some periodic or intermittent basis,” wherein priority for an object can be adjusted, see at least ¶ 7; therefore, adjusting an object to have higher priority would decrease the time elapsed between consecutive CPM events. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that more frequent message transmissions indicate a lower minimum time elapsed because less time is needed between transmissions.)
The Examiner notes that the claim includes a contingent limitation (e.g., “if”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein previously to the transmitting step, the method comprises:
determining an event constituting a safety risk for the monitored area; (Zhang ¶ 7 discloses that the priority of an object is “based on the collision severity or the classification of the respective object”)
wherein in response to the detection of the event, triggering the transmitting step. (Zhang Fig. 4 steps 425 and 440)
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1 wherein:
the safety-critical categorization information comprises a safety- critical level (Zhang ¶ 36), the method further comprises: disabling any mechanism preventing a detected object associated with a safety-critical level higher than a corresponding safety-critical level threshold to be reported in the CPM. (Zhang ¶ 8 discloses that “if object data will not fit into a single message [i.e., a mechanism preventing a detected object from being reported in the CPM], a first message may include data about higher priority objects than objects about which data is provided in second message,” which disables such mechanism. This interpretation is in accordance with the definition for disabling a mechanism provided in page 23 of the instant specification “regardless of whether it has already been reported by the same or by other ITS-S, an object should be included in the next CPM to be transmitted if its safety-critical level is higher than SafetyCriticalLevel_Threshold. Therefore, for such safety-critical objects, redundancy mitigation technics are disabled.” Also see ¶ 46 “the computer 155 could be programmed, upon performing multiple iterations of the process 400, to include only objects of a specified priority or higher, e.g., 3 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5”)
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
reporting the at least one detected object with at least one another detected object thereby forming a group of detected objects; (Zhang Fig. 3 depicts a message 300 having payload segments, wherein each payload segment includes object data, depicting data from one object and another object to be reported in a single message 300 thereby forming a group of detected object data, wherein the objects are detected, see ¶ 15)
wherein all the objects reported within a group of detected objects are categorized as not critical for the safety. (Zhang ¶ 46 discloses “the computer 155 could be programmed, upon performing multiple iterations of the process 400, to include only objects of ... lower priorities, e.g., 1 or 2, only in certain iterations”)
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the safety-critical categorization information is a one-bit flag set to 1 when the object is categorized as critical for the safety of the monitored area and set to 0 otherwise. (Zhang ¶ 29 discloses “The computer 155 can be programmed to serialize, i.e., convert to a string of bits, area map data and data about objects
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein previously to the transmitting step, the method comprises:
selecting among the objects detected by the originating ITS-S, the objects to be reported within the CPM to be transmitted; wherein the CPM reports information related to each selected object. (Zhang ¶ 46 discloses “the computer 155 could be programmed, upon performing multiple iterations of the process 400, to include only [i.e., selecting] objects of a specified priority or higher, e.g., 3 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5, in every iteration, and to include objects of lower priorities, e.g., 1 or 2, only in certain iterations, wherein the message includes payload segments for each respective detected object, see ¶ 31 and corresponding Fig. 3.)
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the selecting step comprises, for each detected object:
obtaining a current safety-critical categorization information of the detected object; (Zhang ¶ 33 discloses the computer 155 receiving sensor 145 data and identifying one or more objects [i.e., obtaining information of the detected object], such that the object may be “recognized [i.e., detected] as an on-duty emergency vehicle” with a priority of 5 [i.e., a current safety-critical categorization information], see ¶ 36)
retrieving a former safety-critical categorization information of the detected object, previously sent in a previous CPM; (Zhang ¶ 33 discloses the computer 155 receiving sensor 145 data and identifying one or more objects [i.e., obtaining information of the detected object], such that the object may be “recognized [i.e., detected] as an on-duty emergency vehicle” with a priority of 5 [i.e., a current safety-critical categorization information], see ¶ 36. The computer 155 determines whether additional segments 310 remain for transmission in a message and if yes, repeating the process of Fig. 4 to return to block 435. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that transmitting an additional segment would have first required retrieving a previous [i.e., former] detected object information sent in a previous CPM.)
selecting the detected object when the current safety-critical categorization information is different from the former safety-critical categorization information. (Zhang ¶ 46 discloses “the computer 155 could be programmed, upon performing multiple iterations of the process 400, to include only objects of a specified priority or higher, e.g., 3 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5, in every iteration, and to include objects of lower priorities, e.g., 1 or 2, only in certain iterations [i.e., selecting the detected object when the safety-critical categorization information is different]”)
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the former safety-critical categorization information and the current safety-critical categorization information are the same, and further comprising:
retrieving a former value of at least one reported parameter of the detected object, previously sent in a previous CPM; (Zhang ¶ 33 discloses the computer 155 receiving sensor 145 data and identifying one or more objects, such that the object may be “recognized [i.e., detected] as an on-duty emergency vehicle” with a priority of 5 [i.e., a former value of at least one reported parameter of the detected object], see ¶ 36. The computer 155 determines whether additional segments 310 remain for transmission in a message and if yes, repeating the process of Fig. 4 to return to block 435. The priority is based on a collision severity, see ¶ 6, and the object is “assigned a collision severity proportional to the square of the relative velocity [i.e., reported parameter] of the object,” see ¶ 37. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that transmitting an additional segment would have first required retrieving a previous detected object information sent in a previous CPM, which would be a former value.)
obtaining a current value of the reported parameter of the detected object; (Zhang ¶ 33 discloses the computer 155 receiving [i.e., obtaining] sensor 145 data and identifying one or more objects, such that the object may be “recognized [i.e., detected] as an on-duty emergency vehicle” with a priority of 5 [i.e., a current value of a reported parameter], see ¶ 36)
selecting the detected object when the difference between the current value and the former value of the reported parameter is greater than a predefined threshold. (Zhang ¶ 46 discloses “the computer 155 could be programmed, upon performing multiple iterations of the process 400 [i.e., includes a former value of the reported parameter], to include only objects of a specified priority or higher, e.g., 3 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5 [i.e., higher than a priority threshold of 3]”)
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses the method of claim 12, wherein:
the reported parameter is one among a position, a speed or an acceleration relatively to the originating station. (Zhang ¶ 6 discloses that the priority is based on a collision severity, see ¶ 6, and the object is “assigned a collision severity proportional to the square of the relative velocity [i.e., reported parameter] of the object,” see ¶ 37.)
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses the method of claim 10 wherein:
the selected object is one among a Vulnerable Road User, VRU, or a vehicle. (Zhang ¶ 25 discloses that the objects that may be selected include a vehicle 105B and a pedestrian [i.e., VRU] 210. Also see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein:
the CPM comprises a data element, Perceived Object Container, configured to contain information related to either the individually reported object or the group of detected objects comprising the reported object. (Zhang ¶ 30 discloses a message packet 300 that includes a header [i.e., a data element or perceived object container], which includes information related to the message containing various amounts of data for different objects. Also see ¶ 31 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses the method of claim 15 wherein:
the Perceived Object Container comprises a data field dedicated to indicate safety-critical categorization information of either the individually reported object or the group of detected objects comprising the reported object. (Zhang ¶ 7 discloses “Assigning the respective priorities can further comprise first initializing the priorities [i.e., safety-critical categorization information] according to an object classification and then adjusting the priorities based on the collision severity or the classification of the respective object.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that initializing a priority according to object classification entails a data field to perform the prioritization. Also see Table 1 disclosing data fields describing detected objects.)
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses an originating ITS station (Zhang ¶ 28 Table 1 “element 140 as an origin”), ITS-S, within an Intelligent Transport System, ITS, the originating ITS-S comprising:
one or more embedded sensors, configured to monitor a given area in order to detect objects; (Zhang Fig. 1 and 2 depicts infrastructure element 140, which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize is embedded in the ground, wherein the infrastructure element 140 generates an area map specifying objects and their respective locations and classifications, see ¶ 8)
an analytical module configured to process data provided by the sensors in order to provide a list of detected objects in the monitored area; (Zhang ¶ 27 discloses a vehicle computer 110 that may “identify, from sensor data 115, [i.e., processing data] sightlines 230 through edge or corner points 235 on an object,” such that the object data being transmitted in messages wherein “first message may include data about higher priority objects than objects about which data is provided in second message,” see ¶ 8, thereby providing a list)
a safety-critical categorization module configured to process the list of detected objects in order to provide a safety-critical categorization information related to each detected object; (Zhang ¶ 8 discloses that the infrastructure element 140 includes “a computer 155 programmed to generate an area map, i.e., a map that specifies objects, and typically their respective locations and classifications, in an area proximate to the infrastructure element 140”)
a communication module configured to transmit a Collective Perception Message, CPM, comprising information related to at least one of the detected objects in the monitored area, (Zhang ¶ 8 discloses “The computer 155 can transmit the area map via a communications module 150 to one or more vehicles 105 in the area proximate to the infrastructure element 140 [i.e., an area monitored by an originating station]” including “a packetized message ... about one or more objects.” The processors of Zhang perform object classification and recognition, see at least ¶¶ 6 and 36, wherein the classification is performed using a deep neural network; therefore, the infrastructure communications and control system 100 is an intelligent transport system (ITS), and the infrastructure element 140 is an ITS station (ITS-S). See Fig. 2. Further, the transmitted area map in the form of a packeted message is a collective perception message (CPM) in accordance with the definition provided on page 2 of the instant specification describing the CPMs to be information transmitted through the transport system.)
wherein the information related to at least one of the detected objects comprises the associated safety-critical categorization information provided by the safety-critical categorization module. (Zhang ¶ 36 discloses that “an object recognized as an on-duty emergency vehicle, e.g., a police car, ambulance, fire truck, etc., is assigned an initial priority of 5 [i.e., a safety-critical level]”)
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses the method for processing a Collective Perception Message, CPM, the method being intended for an Intelligent Transport System, ITS, comprising at least one originating ITS station, ITS-S, and at least one receiving ITS-S, the method comprising the following steps, at the at least one receiving ITS-S:
receiving a CPM reporting information related to at least one object detected within an area monitored by the originating ITS-S; retrieving, from the reported information, a safety-critical categorization information, indicating whether the object is critical for the safety of the monitored area; (Zhang ¶ 6 discloses using a processor to “assign respective priorities to data about each of a plurality of objects based on a collision severity and a classification of each of the objects [i.e., categorization information],” see the monitored area depicted in Fig. 2, wherein “The computer 155 can transmit the area map via a communications module 150 to one or more vehicles 105 in the area proximate to the infrastructure element 140” including “transmission of a packeted message [i.e., CPM]” including “data about one or more objects” for objects having higher and lower priorities, see ¶ 8. The transmitted area map in the form of a packeted message is a collective perception message in accordance with the definition provided on page 2 of the instant specification describing the CPMs to be information transmitted through the transport system. Also see ¶ 36 disclosing objects with higher priority [i.e., categorized as safety-critical].)
determining whether the object is categorized as critical for the safety of the monitored area. (Zhang ¶ 36 discloses that “a police car, ambulance, fire truck, etc., is assigned an initial priority of 5, other vehicles are assigned an initial priority of 1,” which is an example of predefined grouping rules, and determining “whether information about each of the objects identified in the block 405 can be included in a single packet 300, or whether an aggregate size of the data for all of the objects together, e.g., respective payload segments 310 for each object, are larger than a maximum packet 300 payload size [i.e., determining whether the detected object may be reported with another detected object not categorized as critical]” see ¶ 35)
Regarding claim 19, Zhang discloses the method of claim 18, wherein:
the at least one object is reported with at least one another detected object thereby forming a group of detected objects; (Zhang Fig. 3 depicts a message 300 having payload segments, wherein each payload segment includes object data, depicting data from one object and another object to be reported in a single message 300 thereby forming a group of detected object data, wherein the objects are detected, see ¶ 15)
categorizing as not critical for the safety of the monitored area all detected objects that belong to the group. (Zhang ¶ 46 discloses “the computer 155 could be programmed, upon performing multiple iterations of the process 400, to include only objects of ... lower priorities, e.g., 1 or 2, only in certain iterations”)
Regarding claim 20, Zhang discloses the method for processing a Collective Perception Message, CPM, the method being intended for an Intelligent Transport System, ITS, comprising at least one originating ITS station, ITS-S, and at least one receiving ITS-S, the method comprising the following steps, at the at least one receiving ITS-S:
receiving a CPM reporting information related to at least one object detected within an area monitored by the originating ITS-S, wherein the at least one object is reported with at least one another detected object thereby forming a group of detected objects; (Zhang ¶ 33 discloses “the computer 155 receives sensor 145 data and identifies one or more objects,” wherein Fig. 3 depicts a message 300 [i.e., CPM] having payload segments, wherein each payload segment includes object data, depicting data from one object and another object to be reported in a single message 300 thereby forming a group of detected object data, wherein the objects are detected, see ¶ 15. The processors of Zhang perform object classification and recognition, see at least ¶¶ 6 and 36, wherein the classification is performed using a deep neural network; therefore, the infrastructure communications and control system 100 is an intelligent transport system (ITS), and the infrastructure element 140 is an ITS station (ITS-S). See Fig. 2. Further, the transmitted area map in the form of a packeted message is a collective perception message (CPM) in accordance with the definition provided on page 2 of the instant specification describing the CPMs to be information transmitted through the transport system.)
retrieving from the reported information a safety-critical categorization information common to all the objects of the group of detected objects, indicating whether the group of detected objects is categorized as critical for the safety of the monitored area. (Zhang ¶ 6 discloses using a processor to “assign respective priorities to data about each of a plurality of objects based on a collision severity and a classification of each of the objects [i.e., categorization information],” see the monitored area depicted in Fig. 2, wherein “The computer 155 can transmit the area map via a communications module 150 to one or more vehicles 105 in the area proximate to the infrastructure element 140” including “transmission of a packeted message [i.e., CPM]” including “data about one or more objects” for objects having higher and lower priorities, see ¶ 8. Also see ¶ 36 disclosing objects with higher priority [i.e., categorized as safety-critical].)
Regarding claim 21, Zhang discloses the receiving ITS station, ITS-S, within an Intelligent Transport System, ITS, the receiving ITS-S comprising at least one microprocessor configured to performed the method according to claim 18. (Zhang in at least ¶ 51. Also see citations for claim 18.)
Regarding claim 23, Zhang discloses the Collective Perception Message, CPM, to be sent by an originating station of an Intelligent Transport System, ITS (Zhang ¶ 28 Table 1 “element 140 as an origin”), comprising
at least one Perceived Object Container including information related to a reported object, (Zhang ¶ 30 discloses a message packet 300 that includes a header [i.e., a data element or perceived object container], which includes information related to the message containing various amounts of data for different objects. Also see ¶ 31 and Fig. 3).
wherein the Perceived Object Container further comprises a data element dedicated to report safety-critical categorization information of the reported object, indicating whether the reported object is categorized as critical for the safety of an area monitored by the originating station. (Zhang ¶ 7 discloses “Assigning the respective priorities can further comprise first initializing the priorities [i.e., safety-critical categorization information] according to an object classification and then adjusting the priorities based on the collision severity or the classification of the respective object,” wherein the message packet 300 that includes a header [i.e., a data element), see ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 24, Zhang discloses the CPM according to claim 23 further comprising a certificate of the originating ITS-S granted by a certification authority, including a permission to provide a safety-critical categorization information. (Zhang ¶ 30 Table 2 discloses a certificate for message broadcasting devices, wherein the protocol for the communication may “allow [i.e., a permission] inclusion of data for approximately 12 objects in a single message packet,” see ¶ 29)
Regarding claim 25, Zhang discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising a sequence of instructions for implementing a method according to claim 1. (Zhang in at least ¶ 51).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Doig et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0339082) discloses a method at a network element for collective perception in an intelligent transportation system, the method including receiving, from each of a plurality of intelligent transportation system stations, a local dynamic map and distributing the local collective perception map to at least one of the plurality of intelligent transportation system stations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE T SU/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662