DETAILED ACTION
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
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Examiner notes that the document filed on 9/26/2024 as a Certified Copy of Foreign Priority only contains claims and drawings, which does not satisfy 37 CFR 1.55. Therefore, Applicant is not granted the priority date of 3/31/2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), a complete certified copy of the foreign filed application and a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a complete copy of the foreign applicant and a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/26/2024 and 8/7/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 recite a method, therefore claims 1-8 and 11-20 are a process, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 9 and 10 recite a system/computer, therefore claims 9 and 10 are a machine, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow 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) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A collision warning method, comprising:
obtaining a map message (MAP), status information of a host vehicle, and Basic Safety Messages (BSMs) of a plurality of remote vehicles;
determining, based on the MAP and the status information, whether the host vehicle is about to enter an intersection;
selecting a target remote vehicle which has a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection from the plurality of remote vehicles based on the MAP, the status information, and a BSM of each remote vehicle in response to the host vehicle being about to enter the intersection; and
outputting, in a process from the host vehicle entering the intersection to the host vehicle exiting the intersection, collision warning information in response to predicting that the host vehicle is about to collide with the target remote vehicle.
These limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity/in the human mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as human activity/in the mind. For example, “obtaining...,” “determining...,” and “selecting…” encompass a human receiving information about a host vehicle and a plurality of remote vehicle, determining whether the host vehicle is going to collide with one of the remote vehicles in an intersection. Thus, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. 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 have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a 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 are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A collision warning method, comprising:
obtaining a map message (MAP), status information of a host vehicle, and Basic Safety Messages (BSMs) of a plurality of remote vehicles;
determining, based on the MAP and the status information, whether the host vehicle is about to enter an intersection;
selecting a target remote vehicle which has a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection from the plurality of remote vehicles based on the MAP, the status information, and a BSM of each remote vehicle in response to the host vehicle being about to enter the intersection; and
outputting, in a process from the host vehicle entering the intersection to the host vehicle exiting the intersection, collision warning information in response to predicting that the host vehicle is about to collide with the target remote vehicle.
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.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for receiving information about a host vehicle and a plurality of remote vehicle, determining whether the host vehicle is going to collide with one of the remote vehicles in an intersection, 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).
The additional limitation of outputting the information is merely an insignificant extra solution activity.
Furthermore, the additional limitations of claims 9 and 10 are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by using a general processor and computer system to perform the process. In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitation of outputting the information as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitation of outputting information is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because the background of the instant application recites that the means of output is conventional, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computing device is anything other than a conventional computer. Additionally, the remaining elements have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
a. outputting…collision warning information… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-20 specifies limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claim 1, and thus are directed to an abstract idea, do not recite additional limitations that integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to “significantly more” for similar reasons.
Examiner encourages Applicant to request an interview to discuss proposed claim language for overcoming the current rejections under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0024061 to Visintainer et al.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Visintainer et al. discloses:
A collision warning method, comprising:
obtaining a map message (MAP) (¶¶ [0036], [0056] describing receiving map messages), status information of a host vehicle, and Basic Safety Messages (BSMs) of a plurality of remote vehicles (¶ [0026] describing receiving status information and Basic Safety Messages of a plurality of remote vehicles);
determining, based on the MAP and the status information, whether the host vehicle is about to enter an intersection (Figure 3 depicting the vehicles entering an intersection; ¶ [0101] describing the scenario of the vehicles entering an intersection);
selecting a target remote vehicle which has a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection from the plurality of remote vehicles based on the MAP, the status information, and a BSM of each remote vehicle in response to the host vehicle being about to enter the intersection (¶¶ [0074] – [0088] describing selecting a target vehicle that has a risk of collision with the host vehicle entering the intersection); and
outputting, in a process from the host vehicle entering the intersection to the host vehicle exiting the intersection, collision warning information in response to predicting that the host vehicle is about to collide with the target remote vehicle (¶¶ [0078], [0087] describing outputting the collision risk information of the target vehicle onto a list while traveling through the intersection).
Regarding claim 9 specifically, Visintainer et al. further discloses an in-vehicle device having a processor, memory, and a data bus for connection and communication (¶ [0027] describing on-board computer programmed to process the data; see also ¶¶ [0025], [0026] describing the different onboard computer units that communicate with each other).
Regarding claim 10 specifically, Visintainer et al. further discloses storage, programs, and processors (¶ [0027] describing on-board computer programmed to process the data).
Regarding claim 2, Visintainer et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Visintainer et al. further discloses:
wherein selecting a target remote vehicle which has a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection from the plurality of remote vehicles based on the MAP, the status information, and a BSM of each remote vehicle comprises:
selecting one or more candidate remote vehicles which have a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection from the plurality of remote vehicles based on the MAP, the status information, and the BSM of each remote vehicle (¶¶ [0074] – [0078] describing selecting candidate vehicles that have a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection); and
selecting a target remote vehicle which has a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection from the plurality of candidate remote vehicles based on the MAP, the status information, and the BSM of each candidate remote vehicle (¶¶ [0081] – [0087] describing filtering the candidate vehicles to select a target vehicle based on the risk of collision).
Regarding claim 3, Visintainer et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Visintainer et al. further discloses:
wherein selecting one or more candidate remote vehicles which have a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection from the plurality of remote vehicles based on the MAP, the status information, and a BSM of each remote vehicle comprises:
grouping the plurality of remote vehicles based on the MAP, the status information, and the BSM of each remote vehicle to obtain a plurality of remote vehicle groups (¶¶ [0074] – [0078] describing grouping the plurality of vehicles based on the data); obtaining a collision detection model of the intersection, and obtaining a collision detection condition corresponding to each remote vehicle group from the collision detection model (¶¶ [0082] – [0087] describing obtaining a collision detection model of the intersection (Figure 3) and detecting collision conditions for each of the vehicle groups); and screening each remote vehicle in each remote vehicle group based on the collision detection condition corresponding to each remote vehicle group to obtain one or more candidate remote vehicles which have a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection (¶¶ [0082] – [0087] describing screening each vehicle based on the collision detection condition, i.e., time to collision, to obtain candidate vehicles that have a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection and adding those vehicles to the list when the time to collision is above a threshold value or higher).
Regarding claim 4, Visintainer et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Visintainer et al. further discloses:
wherein selecting a target remote vehicle which has a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection from the plurality of candidate remote vehicles based on the MAP, the status information, and a BSM of each candidate remote vehicle comprises:
determining a collision risk point between the host vehicle and each candidate remote vehicle at the intersection based on the MAP, the status information, and the BSM of each candidate remote vehicle; and determining a target remote vehicle which has a risk of collision with the host vehicle from the plurality of candidate remote vehicles based on the collision risk point between the host vehicle and each candidate remote vehicle at the intersection (¶¶ [0082] – [0087] describing determining a collision risk point, i.e., time to collision, and determining target vehicles that have a risk of collision with the host vehicle at the intersection and adding those vehicles to the list when the time to collision is above a threshold value or higher).
Regarding claim 6, Visintainer et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 4. Visintainer et al. further discloses:
wherein determining a target remote vehicle which has a risk of collision with the host vehicle from the plurality of candidate remote vehicles based on the collision risk point between the host vehicle and each candidate remote vehicle at the intersection comprises:
for each collision risk point, determining a first collision time at which the host vehicle reaches the collision risk point, and determining a second collision time at which a candidate remote vehicle corresponding to the collision risk point reaches the collision risk point (¶¶ [0082] – [0087] describing determining the total time to collision for the host vehicle and the nearby vehicle, which would include the collision time for the host vehicle and the nearby vehicle); and
determining the candidate remote vehicle corresponding to the collision risk point as a target remote vehicle in response to a difference between the first collision time and the second collision time being less than or equal to a preset threshold (¶¶ [0082] – [0087] describing listing as a target vehicle the nearby vehicle when the time to collision, i.e., the collision time for both the host vehicle and the nearby vehicle, is below a threshold value; By way of example, if the host vehicle is stopped and the nearby vehicle is traveling, the collision time for the host vehicle would be zero and the collision time for the nearby vehicle would be the total time to collision. This could also be the opposite where the host vehicle is traveling and the nearby vehicle is stopped. Either way, the total time to collision includes both components of the host collision time and the nearby vehicle collision time, and the nearby vehicle is added to the target vehicle list if that total time to collision, i.e., the difference between the two components of time, is below a threshold).
Regarding claims 7, 11-13, and 15, Visintainer et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 6. Visintainer et al. further discloses:
generating a first traveling trajectory of the host vehicle at the intersection and a second traveling trajectory of the target remote vehicle at the intersection after the host vehicle enters the intersection; and predicting, based on the first traveling trajectory and the second traveling trajectory, whether the host vehicle is about to collide with the target remote vehicle (¶¶ [0082] – [0087] describing determining the trajectory of the host vehicle and the nearby vehicle to predict if the vehicles are about to collide based on the trajectories).
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 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visintainer et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0008454 to Christensen et al.
Regarding claim 5, Visintainer et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 4. Visintainer et al. further discloses:
wherein determining a collision risk point between the host vehicle and each candidate remote vehicle at the intersection based on the MAP, the status information, and the BSM of each candidate remote vehicle comprises:
determining a lane in which the host vehicle is located from a plurality of lanes at the intersection based on the MAP and the status information (¶ [0080] describing detecting up to 4 lanes; ¶ [0088] describing determining whether the nearby vehicles are traveling in the host vehicle’s lane, which requires determining which lane the host vehicle is traveling in);
determining a lane in which each candidate remote vehicle is located from the plurality of lanes at the intersection based on the MAP and the BSM of each candidate remote vehicle (¶ [0088] describing determining which lane the nearby vehicle is traveling in and not adding it the list of target vehicles if it is traveling in an adjacent lane).
Visintainer et al. does not expressly discloses determining, based on the MAP, turning information of the lane in which the host vehicle is located and turning information of the lane in which each candidate remote vehicle is located; and determining the collision risk point between the host vehicle and each candidate remote vehicle at the intersection based on the turning information of the lane in which the host vehicle is located and the turning information of the lane in which each candidate remote vehicle is located.
Christensen et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining, based on the MAP, turning information of the lane in which the host vehicle is located and turning information of the lane in which each candidate remote vehicle is located; and determining the collision risk point between the host vehicle and each candidate remote vehicle at the intersection based on the turning information of the lane in which the host vehicle is located and the turning information of the lane in which each candidate remote vehicle is located (¶ [0136] describing obtaining lane and turn information for both the host vehicle and target vehicle as they pass through an intersection to prevent collision; see also Figure 14 depicting same).
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 Visintainer et al.’s invention to incorporate determining lane and turning information of both vehicles to determine a collision risk, as taught by Christensen et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing the host vehicle from proceeding through the intersection until the remote vehicle has passed through if both are in a dedicated turn lane (Christensen et al. at ¶ [0136]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Visintainer et al. and Christensen et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 5. Visintainer et al. further discloses:
generating a first traveling trajectory of the host vehicle at the intersection and a second traveling trajectory of the target remote vehicle at the intersection after the host vehicle enters the intersection; and predicting, based on the first traveling trajectory and the second traveling trajectory, whether the host vehicle is about to collide with the target remote vehicle (¶¶ [0082] – [0087] describing determining the trajectory of the host vehicle and the nearby vehicle to predict if the vehicles are about to collide based on the trajectories).
Claims 8, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visintainer et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0370921 to Silva et al.
Regarding claims 8, 16-18, and 20, Visintainer et al. discloses all the limitations of claims 7, 11-13, and 15.
Visintainer et al. does not expressly disclose wherein predicting, based on the first traveling trajectory and the second traveling trajectory, whether the host vehicle is about to collide with the target remote vehicle comprises: determining a first rectangular parameter of the host vehicle in the first traveling trajectory, and determining a second rectangular parameter of the target remote vehicle in the second traveling trajectory; and determining that the host vehicle is about to collide with the target remote vehicle in response to an overlap existing between a vector projection of the first rectangular parameter and a vector projection of the second rectangular parameter.
Silva et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a first rectangular parameter of the host vehicle in the first traveling trajectory, and determining a second rectangular parameter of the target remote vehicle in the second traveling trajectory; and determining that the host vehicle is about to collide with the target remote vehicle in response to an overlap existing between a vector projection of the first rectangular parameter and a vector projection of the second rectangular parameter (Figure 2B depicting the rectangular parameter of the vehicles and determining whether the rectangles will collide; see also ¶¶ [0032], [0033] describing same).
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 Visintainer et al.’s invention to incorporate determining whether rectangular boxes around the vehicles will overlap as a means for determining whether the vehicles will collide, as taught by Silva et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in determining buffer zones around the vehicles based on size, speed, dimensions, etc. to accurately detect a potential collision of the vehicles (Silva et al. at ¶¶ [0032], [0033]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visintainer et al. and Christensen et al., as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Silva et al.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Visintainer et al. and Christensen et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 14.
Visintainer et al. does not expressly disclose wherein predicting, based on the first traveling trajectory and the second traveling trajectory, whether the host vehicle is about to collide with the target remote vehicle comprises: determining a first rectangular parameter of the host vehicle in the first traveling trajectory, and determining a second rectangular parameter of the target remote vehicle in the second traveling trajectory; and determining that the host vehicle is about to collide with the target remote vehicle in response to an overlap existing between a vector projection of the first rectangular parameter and a vector projection of the second rectangular parameter.
Silva et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a first rectangular parameter of the host vehicle in the first traveling trajectory, and determining a second rectangular parameter of the target remote vehicle in the second traveling trajectory; and determining that the host vehicle is about to collide with the target remote vehicle in response to an overlap existing between a vector projection of the first rectangular parameter and a vector projection of the second rectangular parameter (Figure 2B depicting the rectangular parameter of the vehicles and determining whether the rectangles will collide; see also ¶¶ [0032], [0033] describing same).
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 Visintainer et al.’s invention to incorporate determining whether rectangular boxes around the vehicles will overlap as a means for determining whether the vehicles will collide, as taught by Silva et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in determining buffer zones around the vehicles based on size, speed, dimensions, etc. to accurately detect a potential collision of the vehicles (Silva et al. at ¶¶ [0032], [0033]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights