DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Response to Election/Restriction filed on 12/11/2025. Claim(s) 1-16, 18-19, 31, 35 is/are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19, 31, 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-15, 18, the claims recite “A method performed by a vehicle device” and thus, are a process. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
A method performed by a vehicle device, comprising:
receiving a traffic risk index from a first server, wherein the traffic risk index indicates a traffic risk based on vehicle-to-everything, V2X, message data; and
determining whether to perform one or more actions, according to the traffic risk index.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the “determining…” in the contexts of this claim encompass forming a judgement regarding performing an action based on observed data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea(s).
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis of the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
A method performed by a vehicle device, comprising:
receiving a traffic risk index from a first server, wherein the traffic risk index indicates a traffic risk based on vehicle-to-everything, V2X, message data; and
determining whether to perform one or more actions, according to the traffic risk index.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “performed by a vehicle device”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “vehicle device” is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgement in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The component(s) merely automate(s) the “determining” step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I).
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “receiving a traffic risk index from a first server, wherein the traffic risk index indicates a traffic risk based on vehicle-to-everything, V2X, message data”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity[ies] that merely use a computer (“vehicle device”) to perform a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. In particular, the “vehicle device” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information for use in the “determining” step(s)), and the limitation “receiving a traffic risk…” amounts to mere data gathering for use in the claimed process, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additional elements that are considered extra-solution activities do not integrate the claim into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of the “performed by a vehicle device” is/are merely means to apply the exception and does not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation(s) of “receiving a traffic risk…” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the receiving of the traffic risk index is anything other than a well-known vehicle component receiving data from a well-known server [0086, 0119]. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including
Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 16, the claim(s) recite(s) “A vehicle device” and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 16 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the “one or more processors; and one or more memories comprising computer program codes, the one or more memories and the computer program codes configured to, with the one or more processors, cause the vehicle device at least to”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation(s) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) amount(s) to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-15, 18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the first server and the second server are implemented as a same application server”. Claim 11, from which claim 15 depends recites “transmitting a V2X message report to a second server”. Thus, claim 15 attempts to omit the “second server” and replace with a “same application server”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20220258729 A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 16, Kim teaches A method performed by a vehicle device, comprising:
receiving a traffic risk index from a first server, wherein the traffic risk index indicates a traffic risk based on vehicle-to-everything, V2X, message data (“the communication unit (110) may receive map data, traffic information data, and so on, from an external server….In the middle of autonomous driving, the communication unit (110) may aperiodically/periodically obtain recent traffic information data from the external server and obtain surrounding traffic information data from neighboring vehicles…The autonomous driving unit (140d) may update the autonomous driving path and the driving plan based on the newly obtained data/information. The communication unit (110) may transfer information on a vehicle position, the autonomous driving path, and/or the driving plan to the external server. The external server may predict traffic information data using AI technology, and so on, based on the information collected from vehicles or autonomous vehicles and provide the predicted traffic information data to the vehicles or the autonomous vehicles.”, [0247]); and
determining whether to perform one or more actions, according to the traffic risk index (“The autonomous driving unit (140d) may generate an autonomous driving path and a driving plan from the obtained data. The control unit (120) may control the driving unit (140a) such that the vehicle or the autonomous vehicle (100) may move along the autonomous driving path according to the driving plan (e.g., speed/direction control).”, [0247]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more actions include one or more of:
switching driving modes;
adjusting route planning;
changing a driving strategy; and
alerting (“The autonomous driving unit (140d) may update the autonomous driving path and the driving plan based on the newly obtained data/information.”, [0247]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the determination of whether to perform the one or more actions is also according to traffic data monitored by the vehicle device (“The external server may predict traffic information data using AI technology, and so on, based on the information collected from vehicles or autonomous vehicles and provide the predicted traffic information data to the vehicles or the autonomous vehicles.”, [0247]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle device receives the traffic risk index from the first server periodically and/or on demand (“the communication unit (110) may aperiodically/periodically obtain recent traffic information data from the external server”, [0247]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the V2X message data is extracted from one or more V2X message reports of one or more devices, and wherein the one or more V2X message reports include information about one or more V2X messages which are exchanged between the one or more devices and one or more other devices (“Accordingly, in a situation in which the vehicles periodically transmit a V2X message, a method in which an entity steadily collecting and managing the V2X message judges the accident riskiness by using the corresponding information and preventing the accident may be efficient. As an example, the vehicle periodically transmits the V2X message in order to directly perform the above-described function and a lot of computations for deriving the accident riskiness are performed by receiving the V2X messages of all surrounding vehicles and furthermore, a process of sharing derived information with surroundings may be required.”, [0140]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches The method according to claim 9, wherein the one or more devices include one or more of:
one or more vehicle devices;
one or more road side units; and
one or more traffic control entities (“a method for sensing the vehicle abnormality and propagating the vehicle abnormality to the surroundings by the surrounding vehicles is propose”, [0136]).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer program codes embodied thereon which, when executed on a computer, cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 1 (“The one or more memories (104, 204) may be connected to the one or more processors (102, 202) and store various types of data, signals, messages, information, programs, code, instructions, and/or commands. The one or more memories (104, 204) may be configured by Read-Only Memories (ROMs), Random Access Memories (RAMs), Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memories (EPROMs), flash memories, hard drives, registers, cash memories, computer-readable storage media, and/or combinations thereof. The one or more memories (104, 204) may be located at the interior and/or exterior of the one or more processors (102, 202).”, [0223]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220258729 A1) in view of Mori (US 20190039618 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches The method according to claim 1,
However, Mori teaches
wherein when the traffic risk index is within a predetermined range, the vehicle device determines to perform at least one of the one or more actions corresponding to the predetermined range (“The autonomous driving ECU 50 is electrically connected to a GNSS receiver 71, a lidar 72, a millimeter wave radar 73, a camera unit 74, a map database 75, a V2X receiver 76, and the like. The autonomous driving ECU 50 acquires information relating to a travel environment around the own vehicle, the information being required for autonomous driving, from these elements (71 to 76).”, [0033], “The V2X receiver 76 exchanges information with an onboard communication device which is mounted on another vehicle and a roadside device which is installed on the road side by wireless communication. The V2X receiver 76 receives temporary traffic regulation information, congestion information, and weather information by vehicle-to-vehicle communication with the onboard communication device and road-to-vehicle communication with the roadside device and successively outputs the received information items to the autonomous driving ECU 50…The congestion information includes, for example, information of the degree of traffic congestion, that is, the presence or absence of a traffic jam and a range of a traffic jam, and the condition of traffic flow (e.g., a traveling speed) on a road in the traveling direction. The weather information includes, for example, information of the amount of rainfall, the amount of snowfall, and the occurrence of fog on a road in the traveling direction.”, [0039]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim with the teachings of Mori such that the method of Kim further comprises performing at least one of the one or more actions when the traffic risk index is within a predetermined range, as suggested by Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to alter the behavior of the vehicle based on the degree of traffic congestion or a range of a traffic jam, as taught by Mori [0039].
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches The method according to claim 1,
However, Mori teaches
wherein the traffic risk index is associated with one or more of:
a region;
a time period; and
a time instant (“The autonomous driving ECU 50 is electrically connected to a GNSS receiver 71, a lidar 72, a millimeter wave radar 73, a camera unit 74, a map database 75, a V2X receiver 76, and the like. The autonomous driving ECU 50 acquires information relating to a travel environment around the own vehicle, the information being required for autonomous driving, from these elements (71 to 76).”, [0033], “The V2X receiver 76 exchanges information with an onboard communication device which is mounted on another vehicle and a roadside device which is installed on the road side by wireless communication. The V2X receiver 76 receives temporary traffic regulation information, congestion information, and weather information by vehicle-to-vehicle communication with the onboard communication device and road-to-vehicle communication with the roadside device and successively outputs the received information items to the autonomous driving ECU 50…The congestion information includes, for example, information of the degree of traffic congestion, that is, the presence or absence of a traffic jam and a range of a traffic jam, and the condition of traffic flow (e.g., a traveling speed) on a road in the traveling direction. The weather information includes, for example, information of the amount of rainfall, the amount of snowfall, and the occurrence of fog on a road in the traveling direction.”, [0039]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim with the teachings of Mori such that the traffic risk index of Kim is associated with region, as suggested by Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to alter the behavior of the vehicle based on a condition of traffic flow on a road in a traveling direction of the vehicle, as taught by Mori [0039].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220258729 A1) in view of Chen (US 20200394918 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
However, Chen teaches
transmitting a request for the traffic risk index to the first server (“It needs to be ensured that the data processing module 101b processes the sensing information in real time. If the technology permits, cloud computing may be introduced, to accelerate data processing. If a cloud server is introduced, the data processing module 101b is further configured to send a data processing request to the cloud server, and receive the vehicle driving assistance information fed back by the cloud server. The cloud server is configured to receive the data processing request sent by the data processing module 101b, process the sensing information according to the data processing request to obtain the vehicle driving assistance information, and feed the vehicle driving assistance information back to the data processing module 101b.”, [0083], “the vehicle driving assistance information further includes information such as a three-dimensional location and real-time data. The real-time data includes a traffic signal as well as a flow rate, a speed and density of a traffic flow. After the vehicle-mounted V2X module 102a receives the vehicle driving assistance information, the vehicle-mounted control system 102b adjusts the speed of the vehicle according to the vehicle driving assistance information, so that the driving speed falls within a green wave speed interval, thus reducing a queuing and waiting time at crossroads.”, [0088]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim with the teachings of Chen such that the method of Kim further comprises transmitting a request to a server for the traffic risk index, as suggested by Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be “to accelerate data processing” [0083] by having the server preform processing, as taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Chen teaches The method according to claim 6, and Chen further teaches wherein the request for the traffic risk index includes one or more of:
a list of objects;
one or more region identifiers, IDs, associated with the list of objects; and
estimated time of arrival, ETA, corresponding to one or more region IDs (“a road ambient environment sensing system 101, configured to obtain sensing information of a road ambient environment in real time”, [0056], “the road ambient environment includes all perceivable traffic elements that affect road traffic safety, and the traffic elements include pedestrians, vehicles, roads, road ancillary facilities and obstacles.”, [0058], “As shown in FIG. 2, the road ambient environment sensing system 101 includes: a scanning and sensing module 101a, configured to scan the road ambient environment by using one or more types of scanning devices, and send the sensing information obtained through scanning to a data processing module 101b”, [0060-0061], “It needs to be ensured that the data processing module 101b processes the sensing information in real time. If the technology permits, cloud computing may be introduced, to accelerate data processing. If a cloud server is introduced, the data processing module 101b is further configured to send a data processing request to the cloud server, and receive the vehicle driving assistance information fed back by the cloud server. The cloud server is configured to receive the data processing request sent by the data processing module 101b, process the sensing information according to the data processing request to obtain the vehicle driving assistance information, and feed the vehicle driving assistance information back to the data processing module 101b.”, [0083]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Kim with the teachings of Chen such that the request for the traffic risk index of Kim further comprises a list of objects, as suggested by Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to consider “all perceivable traffic elements that affect road traffic safety” [0058] when planning the actions to be performed by the vehicle, as taught by Chen.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220258729 A1) in view of Zhou (US 20220289235 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
However, Zhou teaches
transmitting a V2X message report to a second server, wherein the V2X message report includes information about one or more V2X messages which are exchanged between the vehicle device and one or more other devices (“in the network architecture shown in FIG. 1, the second vehicle 102 may be connected to the V2X server 106 by using the network device 107. The V2X server 106 may be connected to the RSU 103 and the edge server 105 in a wired manner or a wireless manner, and the edge server 106 is configured to manage and control the RSU 103.”, [0080], Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kim with the teachings of Zhou such that the method of Kim further comprises transmitting a V2X message report to a second server including information about V2X messages exchanged between the vehicle device and other devices, as suggested by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be such that “it is easy and relatively fast to obtain the capability information of [a] second terminal device” [0013], as taught by Zhou.
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Zhou teaches The method according to claim 11, and Zhou further teaches wherein the one or more V2X messages include one or more vehicle-to-vehicle, V2V, messages and/or one or more vehicle-to- infrastructure, V2I, messages (“The first vehicle 101 may be connected to the second vehicle 102 through a sidelink (SL). Communication between the first vehicle 101 and the second vehicle 102 may be referred to as vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication, and the connection between the first vehicle 101 and the second vehicle 102 may be referred to as a V2V connection. V2V indicates a connection between different vehicles. The first vehicle 101 may be connected to the RSU 103 through an SL. Communication between the first vehicle 101 and the RSU 103 may be referred to as vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication, and the connection between the first vehicle 101 and the RSU 103 may be referred to as a V2I connection. V2I indicates a connection between a vehicle and a road infrastructure, for example, a connection between a vehicle and a traffic light.”, [0079], Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Kim with the teachings of Zhou such that the one or more V2X messages of Kim comprise V2V or V2I messages, as suggested by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “maintain a safe driving environment” [0086] when performing the one or more actions by understanding the status information of surrounding objects, as taught by Zhou.
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Zhou teaches The method according to claim 11, and Zhou further teaches wherein the vehicle device transmits the V2X message report to the second server periodically and/or on demand (“the driving vehicle may obtain the status information of the surrounding vehicle in a V2X manner. Subsequently, the driving vehicle may plan a possible driving route for an assisted driving function or an autonomous driving function based on obtained information such as a speed and a distance in a surrounding environment with reference to related information such as a vehicle posture of the driving vehicle, provide a corresponding control command with reference to a vehicle dynamics model, and send the control command to an executor for execution, to achieve the assisted driving function and the autonomous driving function.”, [0086]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Kim with the teachings of Zhou such that the vehicle device of Kim transmits the V2X message report to the second server on demand, as suggested by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “maintain a safe driving environment” [0086] when planning the one or more actions by understanding the status information of surrounding objects to achieve autonomous driving, as taught by Zhou.
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Zhou teaches The method according to claim 11, and Zhou further teaches wherein the first server is a central application server (“external server”, [0247], see also “AI server 400”, Fig. 20), and Zhou further teaches the second server is an edge application server (“edge server 105”, Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Kim with the teachings of Zhou such that the second server is an edge server, as suggested by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be such that the “the edge server [] is configured to manage and control the RSU” [0080], as taught by Zhou.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights