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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2025, 01/22/2025, 06/05/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoude et al. (US PAT 10235882 hereinafter Aoude) in view of Jha et al. (US 20220332350 hereinafter Jha) and further in view of Park et al. (US 20180107532 hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Aoude teaches A system for position estimation and direction recognition between objects (para 54 “this type of communication is known as vehicle-to-everything (V2X)”):
an infrastructure information receiver configured to receive infrastructure information from an infrastructure (claim 13 “the equipment comprising inputs to receive data from sensors oriented to monitor road vehicles and pedestrians at and near the level crossing and to receive phase and timing data for signals on the road and on the rail line”);
an object position determination processor configured to determine a position of equipment in use (para 10 “The road vehicle creates a map of the static objects and moving ground transportation entities in the vicinity of the road vehicle”);
an object position and path prediction processor configured to predict (Abstract “A machine learning model is stored that can predict behavior of ground transportation entities at or near the intersection at a current time.”);
an object information transceiver (para 22 “One of the sensors includes radar”); and
an object and surrounding situation recognition and determination processor configured to recognize an object and a surrounding situation and determine whether a dangerous situation exists by using information acquired (Abstract “Current motion data received from the sensor about ground transportation entities at or near the intersection is applied to the machine learning model to predict imminent behaviors of the ground transportation entities. An imminent dangerous situation for one or more of the ground transportation entities at or near the intersection is inferred from the predicted imminent behaviors.”).
Aoude does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jha teaches
a cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS) linkage (0044 “The VRU systems considered in the present document are Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) that comprise at least one Vulnerable Road User (VRU) and one ITS-Station with a VRU application.”)
a future position and a movement path of the equipment in use (0004 “t is possible to predict future maneuvers and react to them. Unfortunately, a prediction is based on assumptions which can be wrong and therefore the prediction can also be wrong. A maneuver which was based on a wrong prediction leads to inefficient driving, reduces driving comfort or may provoke safety critical situation.”; 0151 “predicted trajectory of other vehicles which may be needed for at least non-autonomous vehicles”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Jha with the teachings of Aoude. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously system accuracy (Jha 0165). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Jha merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Jha and Aoude disclose similar V2X techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Park teaches
an object information transceiver configured to exchange information on the equipment with another object (0055 “For example, autonomous vehicle 120 may use a V2X sensor for passing and/or receiving information from a vehicle to another entity around or near the autonomous vehicle”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Park with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously system reliability (Park 0084). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Park merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the cited prior art and Park disclose similar V2X techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the object position determination processor is configured to determine the position of the equipment in use by using at least one of global positioning system (GPS), inertial measurement unit (IMU), and ultra-wide band (UWB) positioning devices (Aoude Claim 4 “A location receiver 202 (such as a GPS receiver) that provides localization data (e.g., coordinates of the location of the ground transportation entity).”).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 1, wherein, in response to a result obtained by comparing a reception information latency time with a reference time being determined to be a valid value (Park 0022 “The reliability level decider may compare a difference value between a certification received time and a current time with the seventh reference value and the eight reference value to decide the reliability level of the security parameter.”; 0059 “The parameter calculator 112 calculates the IA parameter using an inter-packet gap corresponding to an interval between recently received packets, a current time, and a last package received time.”), the object and surrounding situation recognition and determination processor is configured to determine whether the dangerous situation exists by using the acquired information (Park 0022 “The reliability level decider may compare a difference value between a certification received time and a current time with the seventh reference value and the eight reference value to decide the reliability level of the security parameter; 0065 “the reliability level decider 113 does not perform a reliability decision of the V2X data corresponding to the reliability decision target.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Park with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously system reliability (Park 0084). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Park merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the cited prior art and Park disclose similar V2X techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 1, further comprising:
an object and infrastructure information display configured to display object and infrastructure information by using a determination result regarding whether the dangerous situation exists (Aoude Abstract “A wireless communication device sends to a device of one of the ground transportation entities, a warning about a dangerous situation at or near the intersection”; para 62 “If the risk of collision is higher than a certain threshold, then the warning is displayed to the driver of the host vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 4, wherein the object and infrastructure information display is configured to display information on a position (Aoude para 25 “In general, in an aspect, data is received from infrastructure sensors representing positions and motions of road vehicles being driven or pedestrians walking in a ground transportation network”), a type (Aoude para 42 “For example, the alert to the vulnerable road user may showcase a type of dangerous situation and suggest possible actions”), a current separation distance (Aoude 22 “The data received from one of the sensors includes distance from the sensor and speed”), a speed (Aoude 22 “The data received from one of the sensors includes distance from the sensor and speed”), an expected behavior (Jha 0004 “it is possible to predict future maneuvers and react to them.”), and a separation distance after the expected behavior of a surrounding object (Aoude para 62 “The risk is computed by the SOBE based on the probability of the various future predicted trajectories of the nearby vehicle (e.g., going straight, changing lane to the right, changing lane to the left), and the associated risk of collision with the host vehicle for each of those trajectories. If the risk of collision is higher than a certain threshold, then the warning is displayed to the driver of the host vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 6, Aoude A method for position estimation and direction recognition between objects through (para 174 “V2X protocols stipulate that these applications should be achieved using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications, where one connected remote vehicle would broadcast basic safety messages to a connected host vehicle”):
determining, by a first object and a second object, positions and movement paths of the first object and the second object (para 9 “data from on board sensors about road and driving conditions and about the locations of static objects and moving ground transportation entities in the vehicle surroundings, data about quality of driving by a driver of the road vehicle, and basic safety messages from other ground transportation entities and personal safety messages from vulnerable road users.”),
exchanging, by the first object and the second object (Abstract “Current motion data received from the sensor about ground transportation entities at or near the intersection is applied to the machine learning model to predict imminent behaviors of the ground transportation entities.”),
confirming (Abstract “An imminent dangerous situation for one or more of the ground transportation entities at or near the intersection is inferred from the predicted imminent behaviors”)
displaying object and infrastructure information according to a decision result regarding whether the dangerous situation exists (Abstract “A wireless communication device sends to a device of one of the ground transportation entities, a warning about a dangerous situation at or near the intersection”).
Aoude does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jha teaches
a cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITS) linkage (0044 “The VRU systems considered in the present document are Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) that comprise at least one Vulnerable Road User (VRU) and one ITS-Station with a VRU application.”)
generating information on future expected positions and expected movement paths of the first object and the second object (Jha 0141 “The Planned Trajectory Container is used to share a planned/predicted trajectory as a cumulative result of one or more intentions over a predefined time in the future. Stations can send multiple trajectories with different priorities (e.g., two different trajectories for left lane change). This can help for maneuver coordination among neighboring vehicles.”)
information on the expected positions and the expected movement paths with each other (Jha 0143 “In some implementations, stations are expected also to share the maneuvers of VRU ITS-S(s) 117 as well as non-connected vehicles once they are perceived by the on(off)-board sensors. Additionally, VRU ITS-S(s) 117 may also be expected to share their maneuver intention(s) to neighboring stations for maneuver coordination.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Jha with the teachings of Aoude. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously system accuracy (Jha 0165). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Jha merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Jha and Aoude disclose similar V2X techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Park teaches
confirming reception information latency times of the first object and the second object (0059 “he parameter calculator 112 calculates the IA parameter using an inter-packet gap corresponding to an interval between recently received packets, a current time, and a last package received time.”)
when the reception information latency times are determined to be valid values (Park 0022 “The reliability level decider may compare a difference value between a certification received time and a current time with the seventh reference value and the eight reference value to decide the reliability level of the security parameter.”; 0059 “The parameter calculator 112 calculates the IA parameter using an inter-packet gap corresponding to an interval between recently received packets, a current time, and a last package received time.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Park with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously system reliability (Park 0084). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Park merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the cited prior art and Park disclose similar V2X techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoude et al. (US PAT 10235882 hereinafter Aoude) in view of Jha et al. (US 20220332350 hereinafter Jha) and further in view of Park et al. (US 20180107532 hereinafter Park) as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20190037513 hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the confirming comprises:
determining whether the reception information latency times are valid values according to a result obtained by comparing the reception information latency times with a reference time set by a manufacturer or an administrator for each equipment (Park 0059 “The parameter calculator 112 calculates the IA parameter using an inter-packet gap corresponding to an interval between recently received packets, a current time, and a last package received time.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Park with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously system reliability (Park 0084). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Park merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the cited prior art and Park disclose similar V2X techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Yang teaches
performing time synchronization between the first object and the second object (0148 “The V2V terminal C 100-3 may be able to receive a signal from a satellite, and thus, the signal from the satellite may be utilized as a synchronization signal for V2V communication. The signal from the satellite may be, for example, a global positioning system (GPS) signal or a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Yang with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve D2D communications (Yang 0004). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both the cited prior art and Yang disclose similar V2X techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Kim et al. (US 20210084461) discloses “Disclosed is an on board equipment (OBE) misbehavior detection method of a vehicle to everything (V2X) communication device. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights