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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/9/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the response filed 12/9/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 7 of Applicant’s response, Applicant contends the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
280
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner agrees that Kothbauer et al. (US 2022/0388536) does not disclose this limitation, only disclosing that the data associated with the detected objects that is provided by the computing system includes a classification (see at least [0049]).
However, Hwu et al. (US 2020/0047751) teaches that the data sensed by an infrastructure unit includes information about the position, heading, and speed of a detected object (see [0019]-[0021]). Accordingly, the combination of cited references used to reject claims 1, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 do teach the claims as presented below in this Office action.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-10 of the response filed 12/9/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 (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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kothbauer et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0388536 A1) [hereinafter “Kothbauer”] in view of Hwu et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0047751 A1) [hereinafter “Hwu”] and Moustafa et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0126864 A1) [hereinafter “Moustafa”].
Regarding claim 1, Kothbauer teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
capturing, by a computing system (infrastructure device 140; see [0046]), sensor data associated with a segment of a road, the computing system associated with an infrastructure unit of an infrastructure system, the infrastructure unit dedicated to the segment of the road (see [0042]-[0050]),
detecting, by the computing system, objects in the segment of the road based on the sensor data (see [0049]); and
providing, by the computing system, data associated with the detected objects to a vehicle travelling in the segment of the road, wherein the data associated with the detected objects comprises attributes of the detected objects comprising a classification (see [0043]-[0049]).
Kothbauer does not expressly teach “receiving, by the computing system, from a second infrastructure unit of the infrastructure system, data relating to an event occurring in a second segment of the road, wherein the second infrastructure unit selectively relayed the data relating to the event based on a direction of travel associated with the event.”
Hwu also generally teaches systems and methods for providing information from roadside sensor units to traveling vehicles (see Abstract and Figures 1-2A). Hwu teaches roadside units 120 are provided with sensing units 110 along a road to gather sensor data about vehicles traveling on the roadway (see [0019]-[0021]). Hwu teaches the roadside unit 120 uses information about the direction of travel of a vehicle traveling on one segment of the roadway to determine if it is likely to collide with a vehicle traveling on another segment of the roadway, and only selectively transmits the data if a collision is likely to occur due to overlap of the driving paths of the vehicles (see [0023]-[0040]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Kothbauer to include receiving, by the computing system, from a second infrastructure unit of the infrastructure system, data relating to an event occurring in a second segment of the road, wherein the second infrastructure unit selectively relayed the data relating to the event based on a direction of travel associated with the event, in view of Hwu, as Hwu teaches only selectively relaying the information based on a direction of travel of the detected vehicle prevents the unnecessary transmission of false alert information (see [0004]-[0006]).
Additionally, Kothbauer does not the data associated with the detected objects comprises attributes of the detected objects comprising a position, heading, and speed.
Hwu also teaches that the roadside units 120 and sensing units 110 gather information about vehicles traveling on the roadway (see [0019]-[0021]), wherein that information includes a position, heading, and speed of the detected objects (see [0020]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention taught by Kothbauer to have the infrastructure units collect position, heading, and speed information of the detected objects, in view of Hwu, as Hwu teaches this data from infrastructure units aids in identifying potential collisions. As Hwu teaches that the roadside units gather this data is gathered from the use of radar or lidar (see [0021]), and Kothbauer teaches infrastructure devices include LIDAR or radar systems (see [0045]), no additional components would be necessary. The resultant combination would therefore teach providing this data associated with the detected objects to a vehicle travelling in the segment of the road (see [0043] of Kothbauer).
The combination of Kothbauer and Hwu does not expressly teach enabling, by the computing system, the vehicle to perform a maneuver otherwise not authorized when a first onboard system associated with sensing, perception, and prediction of a plurality of onboard systems of the vehicle experiences a fault, wherein the maneuver is travelling to an interim safe location instead of immediately stopping.
Moustafa also generally teaches an autonomous vehicle system (see Abstract). Moustafa teaches the vehicle system includes sensing, perception, and prediction functionality (see at least [0199]). Moustafa teaches that the vehicle includes a cognitive supervisory system C2S2 to supervise the autonomous stacks of the vehicle and identify a fault in the sensing or perception systems (see [0577]-[0581]). Moustafa teaches that when this occurs, rather than simply stopping the vehicle immediately or handing off control to a manual driver, the supervisory system may instead enable the vehicle to perform a maneuver to continue traveling to and stopping at an interim safe location (see [0589]-[0597]). Moustafa teaches this helps allow the vehicle to stop at a safe location and prevents an abrupt and possibly dangerous handoff to a human driver or immediate stop (see [0583]-[0597]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by the combination of Kothbauer and Hwu to include enabling, by the computing system, the vehicle to perform a maneuver otherwise not authorized when a first onboard system associated with sensing, perception, and prediction of a plurality of onboard systems of the vehicle experiences a fault, wherein the maneuver is travelling to an interim safe location instead of immediately stopping, in view of Moustafa, as Moustafa teaches doing so allows the vehicle to safely operate during a fault while preventing a potentially dangerous immediate stop or handoff (see [0583]-[0597] of Moustafa).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches the direction of travel corresponds to movement of a vehicle associated with the event (see [0023]-[0040] of Hwu).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches the computing system is associated with an infrastructure unit comprising a sensor system and a computation system, the sensor system comprising a camera to capture the sensor data (see [0045] of Kothbauer), and the computation system to detect the objects based on the sensor data (see [0042] and [0046]-[0049] of Kothbauer).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches the data associated with the detected objects comprises attributes of the detected objects further comprising optional predicted behavior (see [0049] of Kothbauer).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches the data associated with the detected objects is redundant to data generated by the first onboard system of the vehicle (see [0030], [0038], [0042]-[0048], and Figure 4 of Kothbauer).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches an expansion of an operation design domain of the vehicle is based on the data associated with the detected objects (see [0042]-[0050] and [0057] of Kothbauer).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches:
receiving, from the second infrastructure unit (see Figures 1 and 4 of Kothbauer that show a plurality of infrastructure devices 140), data relating to the event occurring in the second segment of the road (see [0042]-[0050] and Figure 4 of Kothbauer), the second infrastructure unit i) included in a plurality of infrastructure units of the infrastructure system including the infrastructure unit (see again Figures 1 and 4 of Kothbauer) and ii) dedicated to the second segment of the road (see Figure 4 of Kothbauer); and
providing the data relating to the event to the vehicle (see [0043]-[0050] of Kothbauer).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches the computing system is associated with an infrastructure unit of an infrastructure system (see [0042] and [0050] of Kothbauer), the infrastructure unit comprising one or more types of sensors not present on the vehicle (see [0030] and [0045] of Kothbauer; note that the vehicle sensor suite may include “any” of those sensors, which thereby includes not all of the listed sensors, which may instead be included solely in the infrastructure device).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches a system (infrastructure device 140 of Kothbauer) comprising:
at least one processor (see [0046] of Kothbauer); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations (see [0132] of Kothbauer) comprising:
capturing sensor data associated with a segment of a road, the system associated with an infrastructure unit of an infrastructure system, the infrastructure unit dedicated to the segment of the road (see [0042]-[0050] of Kothbauer);
receiving from a second infrastructure unit of the infrastructure system, data relating to an event occurring in a second segment of the road, wherein the second infrastructure unit selectively relayed the data relating to the event based on a direction of travel associated with the event (see [0023]-[0040] of Hwu and the rejection of claim 1 above);
detecting objects in the segment of the road based on the sensor data (see [0049] of Kothbauer);
providing data associated with the detected objects to a vehicle travelling in the segment of the road, wherein the data associated with the detected objects comprises attributes of the detected objects comprising a classification, position, heading, and speed (see [0043]-[0049] of Kothbauer, [0019]-[0021] of Hwu, and the rejection of claim 1 above); and
enabling the vehicle to perform a maneuver otherwise not authorized when a first onboard system associated with sensing, perception, and prediction of a plurality of onboard systems of the vehicle experiences a fault, wherein the maneuver is travelling to an interim safe location instead of immediately stopping (see [0199], [0577]-[0581], and [0589]-[0597] of Moustafa and the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches the direction of travel corresponds to movement of a vehicle associated with the event (see [0023]-[0040] of Hwu).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches the system is associated with an infrastructure unit comprising a sensor system and a computation system, the sensor system comprising a camera to capture the sensor data (see [0045] of Kothbauer), and the computation system to detect the objects based on the sensor data (see [0042] and [0046]-[0049] of Kothbauer).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches the data associated with the detected objects comprises attributes of the detected objects comprising classification (see [0049] of Kothbauer).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions (see [0132] of Kothbauer) that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system (infrastructure device 140 of Kothbauer; see [0046] of Kothbauer), cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
capturing sensor data associated with a segment of a road, the computing system associated with an infrastructure unit of an infrastructure system, the infrastructure unit dedicated to the segment of the road (see [0042]-[0050] of Kothbauer);
receiving from a second infrastructure unit of the infrastructure system, data relating to an event occurring in a second segment of the road, wherein the second infrastructure unit selectively relayed the data relating to the event based on a direction of travel associated with the event (see [0023]-[0040] of Hwu and the rejection of claim 1 above);
detecting objects in the segment of the road based on the sensor data (see [0049] of Kothbauer);
providing data associated with the detected objects to a vehicle travelling in the segment of the road, wherein the data associated with the detected objects comprises attributes of the detected objects comprising a classification, position, heading, and speed (see [0043]-[0049] of Kothbauer, [0019]-[0021] of Hwu, and the rejection of claim 1 above); and
enabling the vehicle to perform a maneuver otherwise not authorized when a first onboard system associated with sensing, perception, and prediction of a plurality of onboard systems of the vehicle experiences a fault, wherein the maneuver is travelling to an interim safe location instead of immediately stopping (see [0199], [0577]-[0581], and [0589]-[0597] of Moustafa and the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches the direction of travel corresponds to movement of a vehicle associated with the event (see [0023]-[0040] of Hwu).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches the computing system is associated with an infrastructure unit comprising a sensor system and a computation system, the sensor system comprising a camera to capture the sensor data (see [0045] of Kothbauer), and the computation system to detect the objects based on the sensor data (see [0042] and [0046]-[0049] of Kothbauer).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa further teaches the data associated with the detected objects comprises attributes of the detected objects comprising classification (see [0049] of Kothbauer).
Claims 2, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katta et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0199449) [hereinafter “Katta”].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa, as applied to claim 1 above, does not expressly teach the infrastructure system provides services to vehicles subscribed to the services and travelling on the road.
Katta also generally teaches a system for using roadside units to communicate information to a vehicle (see Abstract). Katta teaches the system establishes subscriptions for individual vehicles and validates that subscription before exchanging data with the vehicles and not exchanging data with non-subscribed vehicles (see at least [0015], [0046], and [0076]-[0077]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, and Moustafa such that the road includes vehicles subscribed to the infrastructure system and only providing data to those vehicles subscribed to the infrastructure system, in view of Katta, as Katta teaches this allows for V2X communications with authorized vehicles while providing a potential commercial benefit (see at least [0015] of Katta).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, Moustafa, and Katta, as applied to claim 2 above, teaches the infrastructure system provides services to vehicle subscribed to the services and travelling on the road (see at least [0015], [0046], and [0076]-[0077] of Katta and the rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kothbauer, Hwu, Moustafa, and Katta, as applied to claim 2 above, teaches the infrastructure system provides services to vehicle subscribed to the services and travelling on the road (see at least [0015], [0046], and [0076]-[0077] of Katta and the rejection of claim 2 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667