DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 9-21 are pending in this application.
Claims 9 and 12 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claims 15-21 are newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
This application contains numerous claims containing contingent apparatus limitations. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” MPEP § 2111.04(II).
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 4, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 claims a vehicle but further recites additional elements and behaviors related to a remote server that is not part of the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (DE 102020134969 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US 20220081003 A1) in view of Jacobs (US 20140278044 A1) (the combination of which will be referenced to as "combination Kitamura" supra). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 9, Kitamura teaches a vehicle comprising:
a plurality of types of sensors; (Kitamura: ¶ 089; a speed sensor 61, an acceleration sensor 62, a camera such as a digital camera.) an acquisition section that acquires a plurality of types of detection data from the respective plurality of types of sensors (Kitamura: ¶ 091; ECU 26 may perform processing based on the detection information) every time a certain time period has elapsed; (Kitamura: ¶ 091; ECU 27 may determine whether a transmission time for the information about the own vehicle has been reached.) a vehicle side communication section that transmits at least some of the detection data to a server (Kitamura: ¶ 093; The communication device 71 can send and receive data to be sent and received from the ECU 27 for external communication to and from a device outside the vehicle.) . . . in a case where a first time period longer than the certain time period has elapsed since transmission of the detection data, the vehicle side communication section transmitting the detection data that has been most recently acquired, and (Kitamura: ¶ 108; external communication ECU 27 may determine whether a transmission time for the information about the own vehicle has been reached)
Kitamura does not explicitly teach: . . . which uses a trained model constructed by machine learning to predict, on the basis of the detection data, at least a position of the vehicle in a period from a time when the detection data is acquired to a time after an elapse of a time period longer than the certain time period and that receives, from the server, a predicted value of the position of the vehicle; and; a determination section that, every time the plurality of types of the detection data are acquired, determines whether an error which is not less than a threshold has occurred between a measured value indicating the position of the vehicle which position is based on the detection data and the predicted value of the position of the vehicle, at the time when the detection data is acquired; however, Brown does teach:
. . . which uses a trained model constructed by machine learning to predict, on the basis of the detection data, at least a position of the vehicle in a period from a time when the detection data is acquired to a time after an elapse of a time period longer than the certain time period and that receives, from the server, a predicted value of the position of the vehicle; and (Brown: ¶ 056; object detection machine learning modules 1520 may be implemented using neural networks and/or machine learning algorithms for detecting objects from images, videos, infrared images, point clouds, radar data, etc. The object detection machine learning modules 1520 may be trained by a training dataset 1522. In one embodiment, the operation server 1500 may be implemented in a cluster of servers) (Brown: ¶ 319; planning module 1762 can perform navigation planning 1764 to determine a set of trajectories on which the autonomous vehicle can be driven. The set of trajectories can be determined based on the drivable area information, the one or more object attributes of objects, the motion pattern situational tags of the objects, location of the obstacles, and the drivable area information.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Brown with the teachings of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would result in using machine learning which would allow the combined invention “to learn from the navigation plans set by the user 1536 in each situation and recommend similar navigation plans for similar situations” in future guidance calculations (Brown: ¶ 287).
Kitamura does not explicitly teach: a determination section that, every time the plurality of types of the detection data are acquired, determines whether an error which is not less than a threshold has occurred between a measured value indicating the position of the vehicle which position is based on the detection data and the predicted value of the position of the vehicle, at the time when the detection data is acquired, . . . in a case where the determination section determines that the error which is not less than the threshold has occurred, without waiting for arrival of a time when subsequent detection data is transmitted, the vehicle side communication section transmitting, to the server, the detection data that has been most recently acquired; however, Jacobs does teach:
a determination section that, every time the plurality of types of the detection data are acquired, determines whether an error which is not less than a threshold has occurred between a measured value indicating the position of the vehicle which position is based on the detection data and the predicted value of the position of the vehicle, at the time when the detection data is acquired, (Jacobs: ¶ 018; the mobile device may monitor its movement or its position to determine if it has changed from one road to another, may monitor its movement or position to determine if its velocity has changed by more than a threshold amount, may monitor its location to determine if it has deviated from a predicted or assigned route, or may monitor its location to determine if a difference between its current location and a predicted location exceeds a threshold amount. If the mobile device determines that a change or deviation has occurred, then the mobile device transmits its updated location to the server.) . . . in a case where the determination section determines that the error which is not less than the threshold has occurred, without waiting for arrival of a time when subsequent detection data is transmitted, the communication section transmitting, to the server, the detection data that has been most recently acquired, (Jacobs: ¶ 018; the mobile device may monitor its movement or its position to determine if it has changed from one road to another, may monitor its movement or position to determine if its velocity has changed by more than a threshold amount, may monitor its location to determine if it has deviated from a predicted or assigned route, or may monitor its location to determine if a difference between its current location and a predicted location exceeds a threshold amount. If the mobile device determines that a change or deviation has occurred, then the mobile device transmits its updated location to the server.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Jacobs with the teachings of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would predictably improve accuracy of positional reporting without increase battery consumption (Jacobs: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Kitamura teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 9. Brown further teaches:
further comprising a judgment section that judges whether traveling based on the behavioral indication received by the communication section is possible, (Brown: ¶ 019; in a case of the lead AV encountering a road closure, if it is determined that re-routing for a following AV is not possible (e.g., there are no exits between the following AV and the road closure)) the communication section transmitting the detection data in a case where the judgment section judges that traveling based on the behavioral indication is impossible. (Brown: ¶ 145; control subsystem 1400 sends the first message 614 to the operation server 1500, indicating that the road closure 602 is detected at the particular location coordinates. For example, the first message 614 may include sensor data 616a.)
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Kitamura teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 9. Brown further teaches:
further comprising an operation control section that, on the basis of the behavioral indication received by the communication section, automatically controls at least some of operations carried out by the vehicle, or an output control section that controls output of the behavioral indication. (Brown: ¶ 006; system includes a lead autonomous vehicle) (Brown: ¶ 306; vehicle control subsystem 1648 may be configured to control the operation of the AV)
Claims 12-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (DE 102020134969 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US 20220081003 A1) in view of Rautalin (US 20170269221 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 12, Kitamura teaches a server comprising:
a server side communication section that receives, from a vehicle including a plurality of types of sensors, a plurality of types of detection data output from the respective plurality of types of sensors; (Kitamura: ¶ 112; communication devices can transmit the information received from the terminal 2 of the vehicle 100 to the server) . . . at a time after an elapse of a time period longer than the certain time period from a time when the detection data is acquired and that outputs a prediction result for the position of the vehicle as prediction data; and (Kitamura: ¶ 091; ECU 27 may determine whether a transmission time for the information about the own vehicle has been reached.) . . . an execution section that carries out a simulation regarding a traffic condition on the basis of the received prediction data and traffic data of a traffic participant, (Kitamura: ¶ 149; server CPU 14 may generate, for each of the target vehicles 100, a safe travel path that does not obstruct or approach another mobile body from the actual position of the vehicle 100 on the actual map toward the predicted position of the vehicle 100 on the prediction map) in a case where the communication section receives subsequent detection data after a first time period has elapsed since reception of the detection data, (Kitamura: ¶ 119; the time of the vehicle 100 is updated based on a timer of the vehicle 100, which time may include an error with respect to the common time.) the prediction section outputting the prediction data indicating the position of the vehicle at a time later than the time when the detection data is acquired and after an elapse of the first time period longer than the certain time period, . . . (Kitamura: ¶ 120; the time of the field information transmitted by the vehicle 100 may be different from the time of the server 6 [therefore the] server CPU 14 may determine the presence or absence of such an error based, for example, on a comparison between the received field information [and] the server CPU 14 may determine that correction is required and may cause the process to proceed to step ST13. In a case where the error is less than the threshold (step ST12: No), the server CPU 14 may determine that correction is not required and may cause the process to proceed to a step ST14.) (Kitamura: ¶ 122; server CPU 14 may also correct other information that can be corrected in accordance with the time correction, such as: B. the position and speed of the vehicle 100)
Kitamura does not explicitly teach: a prediction section that uses a trained model constructed by machine learning to predict, on the basis of the plurality of types of detection data received by the server side communication section, at least a position of the vehicle; however, Brown does teach:
a prediction section that uses a trained model constructed by machine learning to predict, on the basis of the plurality of types of detection data received by the server side communication section, at least a position of the vehicle (Brown: ¶ 275; rules to update routing plans 1514 and/or driving instructions 1518 of the AVs 1602, when the lead AV 1602-1 is encountering an unexpected situation) (Brown: ¶ 287; server 1500 may train the machine learning module used to generate the unexpected situation instructions 1410 to learn from the navigation plans set by the user 1536 in each situation and recommend similar navigation plans for similar situations.) (Brown: ¶ 319; planning module 1762 can perform navigation planning 1764 to determine a set of trajectories on which the autonomous vehicle can be driven. The set of trajectories can be determined based on the drivable area information, the one or more object attributes of objects, the motion pattern situational tags of the objects, location of the obstacles, and the drivable area information.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Brown with the teachings of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would result in using machine learning which would allow the combined invention “to learn from the navigation plans set by the user 1536 in each situation and recommend similar navigation plans for similar situations” in future guidance calculations (Brown: ¶ 287).
Kitamura does not explicitly teach: and in a case where the server side communication section receives the subsequent detection data before the first time period has elapsed since reception of the detection data, the prediction section outputting, as the prediction data, second prediction data indicating a predicted value of the position of the vehicle at a time later than the time when the detection data is acquired and after an elapse of a second time period longer than the certain time period and shorter than the first time period; however, Rautalin does teach:
A system wherein a mobile device predicts the path of a satellite based on data provided by the satellite and when the predicted location fails to match newly acquired real-word observed location the mobile device corrects its prediction model to apply the newly applied location and reduce the length of the prediction carried out going forward. (Rautalin: ¶ 109; Mobile device 300 may monitor the accuracy of satellite locations that have been predicted based on the set of received values and corrected using the determined error functions. Mobile device 300 may adjust the update rate and thus the prediction length accordingly.) (Rautalin: ¶ 112; the repetition rate of the process may also be set for instance such that the corrected SISRE error can be expected to remain below a predetermined threshold value) (Rautalin: Fig. 4; [408])
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested the limitation: and in a case where the server side communication section receives the subsequent detection data before the first time period has elapsed since reception of the detection data, the prediction section outputting, as the prediction data, second prediction data indicating a predicted value of the position of the vehicle at a time later than the time when the detection data is acquired and after an elapse of a second time period longer than the certain time period and shorter than the first time period because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both the claimed limitation and the prior art Rautalin teach the concept of adjusting the length of predicted path based on accuracy feedback and the only difference between the prior art and the claimed limitation is if the length adjust is triggered based upon recognition of the error becoming large (1) due to non-standard timing of data transmission or (2) through continuous checking for unacceptable error. However converting a process from continuous or discontinuous to the other is obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art under In reDilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963).
Furthermore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rautalin with the teachings of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would predictably allow correction of errors that arise from locations calculated using data “outside of the first validity period” (Rautalin: ¶ 008).
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, Kitamura in view of Brown in view of Rautalin teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Kitamura further teaches:
wherein, immediately before a time after a certain time period is reached, the prediction section requests the vehicle to transmit the detection data for new prediction. (Kitamura: ¶¶ 130-131; server CPU 14 can determine whether a time elapsed since the previous generation time has reached a predetermined generation cycle . . . server CPU 14 can obtain, as field information related to the movement of the vehicles 100, information related to the movement of the vehicles 100, information about the users of the vehicles)
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, Kitamura in view of Brown in view of Rautalin teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Brown further teaches:
wherein the communication section transmits, to at least one selected from the group consisting of the vehicle and a terminal device possessed by the traffic participant, a result of the simulation carried out by the execution section. (Brown: ¶ 256; server 1500 sends the updated map data 1510 to the one or more following AVs 1602. As such, when the one or more following AVs 1602 receive the updates map data 1510, their control subsystem 1400s may update their driving instructions 1518 to incorporate the driving instructions 1518 of the road structural change 1202 before reaching the road structural change)
Regarding claim 21, as detailed above, combination Kitamura teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Rautalin further teaches:
wherein in a case where the detection data is received and then the subsequent detection data is received before the second time period has elapsed since outputting of the second prediction data on a basis of the detection data, the prediction section outputs, as the prediction data, third prediction data indicating a predicted value of the position of the vehicle at a time later than the time when the detection data is acquired and after an elapse of a third time period shorter than the second time period (Rautalin: ¶ 109; Mobile device 300 may monitor the accuracy of satellite locations that have been predicted based on the set of received values and corrected using the determined error functions. Mobile device 300 may adjust the update rate and thus the prediction length accordingly.) (Rautalin: ¶ 112; the repetition rate of the process may also be set for instance such that the corrected SISRE error can be expected to remain below a predetermined threshold value) (Rautalin: Fig. 4; [408])
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Kitamura as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Rautalin (US 20170269221 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Kitamura teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 9. To the extent that Kitamura is silent or does not explicit teach:
wherein the server is configured such that in a case where the server receives subsequent detection data after a first time period has elapsed since reception of the detection data, the server outputs first prediction data indicating a predicted value of the position of the vehicle at a time later than the time when the detection data is acquired and after an elapse of the first time period longer than the certain time period, and in a case where the server receives the subsequent detection data before the first time period has elapsed since reception of the detection data, the server outputs second prediction data indicating a predicted value of the position of the vehicle at a time later than the time when the detection data is acquired and after an elapse of a second time period longer than the certain time period and shorter than the first time period, and the vehicle side communication section transmits said at least some of the detection data to the server and receives the first prediction data or the second prediction data; however, Rautalin does teach:
A system wherein a mobile device predicts the path of a satellite based on data provided by the satellite and when the predicted location fails to match newly acquired real-word observed location the mobile device corrects its prediction model to apply the newly applied location and reduce the length of the prediction carried out going forward. (Rautalin: ¶ 109; Mobile device 300 may monitor the accuracy of satellite locations that have been predicted based on the set of received values and corrected using the determined error functions. Mobile device 300 may adjust the update rate and thus the prediction length accordingly.) (Rautalin: ¶ 112; the repetition rate of the process may also be set for instance such that the corrected SISRE error can be expected to remain below a predetermined threshold value) (Rautalin: Fig. 4; [408])
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested the limitation: wherein the server is configured such that in a case where the server receives subsequent detection data after a first time period has elapsed since reception of the detection data, the server outputs first prediction data indicating a predicted value of the position of the vehicle at a time later than the time when the detection data is acquired and after an elapse of the first time period longer than the certain time period, and in a case where the server receives the subsequent detection data before the first time period has elapsed since reception of the detection data, the server outputs second prediction data indicating a predicted value of the position of the vehicle at a time later than the time when the detection data is acquired and after an elapse of a second time period longer than the certain time period and shorter than the first time period, and the vehicle side communication section transmits said at least some of the detection data to the server and receives the first prediction data or the second prediction data because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both the claimed limitation and the prior art Rautalin teach the concept of adjusting the length of predicted path based on accuracy feedback and the only difference between the prior art and the claimed limitation is if the length adjust is triggered based upon recognition of the error becoming large (1) due to non-standard timing of data transmission or (2) through continuous checking for unacceptable error. However converting a process from continuous or discontinuous to the other is obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art under In reDilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963).
Furthermore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rautalin with the teachings of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would predictably allow correction of errors that arise from locations calculated using data “outside of the first validity period” (Rautalin: ¶ 008).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Kitamura in view of Rautalin as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Song (US 20230107147 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Kitamura teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 9. To the extent that Kitamura is silent or does not explicit teach:
wherein after the vehicle side communication section has transmitted, to the server, the detection data that has been most recently acquired without waiting for arrival of the time when subsequent detection data is transmitted, the communication section changes an interval for transmitting the detection data from the first time period to the second time period; however, Song teaches:
wherein after the vehicle side communication section has transmitted, to the server, the detection data that has been most recently acquired without waiting for arrival of the time when subsequent detection data is transmitted, the communication section changes an interval for transmitting the detection data from the first time period to the second time period. (Song: ¶ 102; he initial transmission period P of the VRU 920 is 1 second. The V2X server 910 calculates the predicted path of the VRU 920 and compares it with the actual path. If the difference between the predicted path and the actual path is less than a certain level, the V2X server 910 adjusts the transmission period of the VRU 920 through the control message 940. Let the adjusted transmission period be 5 seconds. If the predicted path matches the actual path, the V2X server 910 increases the transmission period)
Furthermore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Song with the teachings of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would predictably improve battery life. (Song: ¶ 102).
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Kitamura in view of Rautalin in view of Song teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 16. Song further teaches:
wherein in a case where a state in which it is determined that the error which is not less than the threshold has not occurred is continued for the second time period, the vehicle returns the interval for transmitting the detection data from the second time period to the first time period. (Song: ¶ 104; If the path of the VRU 920 changes rapidly or the actual path does not match the predicted path, the V2X server 910 may transmit a control message 950 to the VRU 920 to modify the transmission period of the V2X message. For example, the transmission period may be changed from 5 seconds to 1 second. By changing to a shorter transmission period, the V2X server 910 may track the path of the VRU 920.)
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Brown in view of Rautalin as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Chang (US 20140032088 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, Kitamura in view of Brown in view of Rautalin teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. To the extent that Kitamura is silent or does not explicit teach:
wherein when the prediction section outputs the second prediction data, the prediction data predicts the position of the vehicle on a basis of relatively fewer types of the detection data than when outputting the first prediction data, and outputs a result of the prediction as the second prediction data; Chang does teach:
wherein when the prediction section outputs the second prediction data, the prediction data predicts the position of the vehicle on a basis of relatively fewer types of the detection data than when outputting the first prediction data, and outputs a result of the prediction as the second prediction data. (Chang: ¶ 031; if the prediction status is set to be the rising status and the latest journey data shows that the travelling time is either smaller than the minimum time or is ranged between the maximum time and the minimum time, the rising status is proven to be incorrect and thus the report of the latest journey data is discarded . . . By the zeroing of the timer, a new observation period of step S8 is initiated and . . .the traffic information is adjusted, as indicated in step S15)
Furthermore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chang with the teachings of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would predictably improve battery life. (Chang: ¶ 102).
Regarding claim 19, as detailed above, Kitamura in view of Brown in view of Rautalin in view of Chang teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 18. Rautalin further teaches:
wherein the detection data used when the prediction section outputs the first prediction data includes prior information that is set before travelling, (Rautalin: ¶ 123; instead of using a backward prediction in action 403, it would also be possible to determine first satellite locations using the first set of ephemeris data within the first validity period
And Kitamura further teaches: event information that is generated in response to occurrence of an event, (Kitamura: ¶ 283; For each subsequent truck 102 of the platooning group, the server CPU 14 may generate information about a travel path or movement area that makes it less likely that the trucks 102 will be determined to be interfering with each other and that allows the trucks 102 to move in a similar manner to each other in a closely sequential state.) and update information that is periodically updated, (Kitamura: ¶ 108; external communication ECU 27 may determine whether a transmission time for the information about the own vehicle has been reached) and the detection data used when the prediction section outputs the second prediction data includes the update information and map information (Kitamura: ¶ 285; vehicles 100 to be platooned may be identified in the information containing the mapped positions of the vehicles 100, and information about a travel path or a movement area for platooning may be generated.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Brown in view of Rautalin as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Song (US 20230107147 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 20, as detailed above, Kitamura in view of Brown in view of Rautalin teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. To the extent that Kitamura is silent or does not explicit teach:
wherein when an interval for receiving the detection data is returned from the second time period to the first time period, the prediction section returns prediction data to be outputted to the first prediction data; however, Song does teach:
wherein when an interval for receiving the detection data is returned from the second time period to the first time period, the prediction section returns prediction data to be outputted to the first prediction data. (Song: ¶ 102; initial transmission period P of the VRU 920 is 1 second. The V2X server 910 calculates the predicted path of the VRU 920 and compares it with the actual path. If the difference between the predicted path and the actual path is less than a certain level, the V2X server 910 adjusts the transmission period of the VRU 920 through the control message 940. Let the adjusted transmission period be 5 seconds. If the predicted path matches the actual path, the V2X server 910 increases the transmission period)
Furthermore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Song with the teachings of Kitamura with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would predictably improve battery life. (Song: ¶ 102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 9-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that:
Claim 9 requires that the vehicle transmit detection data to the server. Campbell teaches the opposite data flow. In Campbell, the local controller compares the carrier's predicted location with the measured checkpoint location, and if the difference exceeds a threshold, the local controller sends a location correction message to the carrier. See Campbell at paragraph [0034]. If Campbell's location correction message is mapped to the claimed detection data, the transmission direction is reversed, i.e., Campbell sends data from the controller to the carrier, whereas claim 9 requires data transmission from the vehicle to the server. Combining Brown and Campbell with Kitamura would yield a system where detection data flows periodically from vehicle to server, the server compares predicted and measured values, and when an error exceeds the threshold, the server sends a correction message back to the vehicle. In such a system, the comparison function resides in the server. Claim 9, however, requires a determination section located in the vehicle, not the server. Even abstracting Campbell's teaching to a general comparison concept, the result would be a system where the vehicle compares a predicted value (received from the server) against a measured value and, upon detecting an excessive error, sends a location correction message to the server. But in that configuration, the vehicle could simply correct its own position based on the comparison result, making any message to the server superfluous. (Applicant’s Arguments filed Feb. 4, 2026, pg. 8).
Newly applied art Jacobs (US-20140278044-A1) teaches a system in which a mobile device monitors its location and upon moving off of a predicted path by a threshold amount it triggers an update to a location. Jacobs: ¶ 018. Consequently, Jacobs teaches the vehicle transmit detection data to the server in the manner claim in the claim 9.
Applicant further argues that:
Claim 12 requires that when the server receives subsequent detection data before the first time period has elapsed, the prediction section outputs second prediction data for a shorter second time period. Campbell does not teach this feature. The Examiner reasons that because the vehicle must continue operating, the server necessarily processes the transmitted data before the first time period elapses. See Final Office Action at page 13. This reasoning misses the point of the claimed invention.
In a system derived from combining Kitamura, Brown, and Campbell, once the server sends a location correction message and the carrier corrects its position, normal operation can resume at the original interval. There would be no reason to shorten the prediction interval or to predict a nearer future position. The combination simply does not motivate the adaptive behavior of claim 12. The claimed second prediction data serves a different purpose. When the server receives detection data earlier than expected, indicating that the predicted and measured positions diverged significantly, the invention recognizes that the underlying cause of that divergence may persist. To address this possibility, the server shifts to predicting a nearer future position, enabling finer control of the vehicle's state. This rationale is absent from the cited references. (Applicant’s Arguments filed Feb. 4, 2026, pg. 9).
Newly applied art Rautalin (US-20060069470-A1) teaches a system where a mobile device predicts the path of a satellite vehicles and compares the newly acquired location data to the predicted path. If it is determined that the predicted path error exceeds a threshold amount, the mobile devices adjust the prediction length to be longer or shorter as to optimize the maximum acceptable error. Rautalin: ¶ 109; 112; Fig. 4 [408]; etc. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Lei (US 20220238020 A1) which discloses a server that determines a plurality of recommended exit paths for vehicles departing a locality and trigger updates to a map based upon the vehicle using an expected or unexpected exit path. Also made of record is Zou (US 20210092584 A1) which teaches a system wherein a user device sends a location update message or a signal with predefined pattern to a server where the server updates the mobility prediction information and transmits an updated mobility prediction information message the user equipment anytime the error in positional location exceeds a threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights