DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
2. Claims 1-10 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 10/22/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Examiner’s Note
5. 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 their entirety as potentially teaching all of 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 Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “being one of the at least one vehicle” should read “the vehicle” or “a communicator configured to acquire, from a vehicle” should be changed to “a communicator configured to acquire, from at least one vehicle..”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “for the out-of-region vehicles”. Only one out-of-region vehicle is mentioned in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a direction of travel of a vehicle”. What vehicle is being discussed? The vehicle within the observation area? The “out of region vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “according to claim”. What claim is this dependent on? 4 or 5? Both were crossed out in amendments. Also the claim reads “first notification information no object” Examiner believes this should read “the object”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“observer” in claim 1
“communicator” in claim 1
“controller” In claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9
“acquirer” in claim 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specification for some of the above limitations:
“observer”- sensor, paragraph [0017]
“communicator” – communication circuit and an antenna, paragraph [0025]
“controller” – processor, paragraph [0027]
“acquirer” – communication interface, paragraph [0056]
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to apparatus.
Claim 9 is directed to a information processing apparatus.
Claim 20 is directed a method (i.e., a process).
Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 10 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 20 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below - bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The claim limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are underlined.
Claim 1 recites,
An observation apparatus comprising:
an observer configured to observe an object in an observation area; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can observe an object within an observation area. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
a memory configured to store a fixed position of the observer and the observation area;
a communicator configured to acquire, from a vehicle, vehicle information containing a position of the vehicle;
and a controller configured to, based on the fixed position, the observation area, and the vehicle information acquired from at least one vehicle, rank objects in the observation area in a descending order of a value for an out-of-region vehicle, the objects being to be contained in first notification information to be transmitted to the out-of-region vehicle, the out-of- region vehicle being one of the at least one vehicle configured to transmit the vehicle information and being located outside the observation area and heading toward the fixed position. (A person of ordinary skill in the art can rank objects in an observation are in a descending order. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
Claim 9 recites,
An information processing apparatus for vehicle mount, comprising:
an acquirer configured to acquire from an observation apparatus first notification information regarding an object in an observation area of the observation apparatus, acquire, from a vehicle including the acquirer, first vehicle information containing a position of the vehicle and detection data regarding a nearby object, and acquire, from a second vehicle other than the vehicle, second vehicle information containing a position of the second vehicle;
and a controller configured to identify a closest vehicle based on the first vehicle information and the second vehicle information and rank objects to be contained in second notification information in a descending order of a value for the identified vehicle, the objects being contained in the first notification information and in the detection data, the second notification information being to be transmitted to the identified vehicle. (A person of ordinary skill in the art can identify a closest vehicle based on collected data and rank objects in an observation are in a descending order. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
Claim 10 recites,
An information processing method comprising:
storing a fixed position of an observer and an observation area to be observed by the observer;
acquiring, from a vehicle, vehicle information containing a position of the vehicle;
and based on the fixed position, the observation area, and the vehicle information acquired from at least one vehicle, ranking objects in the observation area in a descending order of a value for an out-of-region vehicle, the objects being to be contained in first notification information to be transmitted to the out-of-region vehicle, the out-of-region vehicle being one of the at least one vehicle that has transmitted the vehicle information and being located outside the observation area and heading toward the fixed position. (A person of ordinary skill in the art can rank objects in an observation are in a descending order. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts 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”):
Claim 1 recites,
An observation apparatus comprising:
an observer configured to observe an object in an observation area;
a memory configured to store a fixed position of the observer and the observation area; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
a communicator configured to acquire, from a vehicle, vehicle information containing a position of the vehicle; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
and a controller configured to, based on the fixed position, the observation area, and the vehicle information acquired from at least one vehicle, rank objects in the observation area in a descending order of a value for an out-of-region vehicle, the objects being to be contained in first notification information to be transmitted to the out-of-region vehicle, the out-of- region vehicle being one of the at least one vehicle configured to transmit the vehicle information and being located outside the observation area and heading toward the fixed position. (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere setting process based of the mental process. It does not showcase a controlling step or entitle that the vehicle is going to be moving to the selected location. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
Claim 9 recites,
An information processing apparatus for vehicle mount, comprising:
an acquirer configured to acquire from an observation apparatus first notification information regarding an object in an observation area of the observation apparatus, acquire, from a vehicle including the acquirer, first vehicle information containing a position of the vehicle and detection data regarding a nearby object, and acquire, from a second vehicle other than the vehicle, second vehicle information containing a position of the second vehicle; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
and a controller configured to identify a closest vehicle based on the first vehicle information and the second vehicle information and rank objects to be contained in second notification information in a descending order of a value for the identified vehicle, the objects being contained in the first notification information and in the detection data, the second notification information being to be transmitted to the identified vehicle. (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere setting process based of the mental process. It does not showcase a controlling step or entitle that the vehicle is going to be moving to the selected location. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
Claim 10 recites,
An information processing method comprising:
storing a fixed position of an observer and an observation area to be observed by the observer; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
acquiring, from a vehicle, vehicle information containing a position of the vehicle; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
and based on the fixed position, the observation area, and the vehicle information acquired from at least one vehicle, ranking objects in the observation area in a descending order of a value for an out-of-region vehicle, the objects being to be contained in first notification information to be transmitted to the out-of-region vehicle, the out-of-region vehicle being one of the at least one vehicle that has transmitted the vehicle information and being located outside the observation area and heading toward the fixed position. (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere setting process based of the mental process. It does not showcase a controlling step or entitle that the vehicle is going to be moving to the selected location. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1, 10 and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element discussed above, appears to be mere data gathering and transmitting of information which can be analyzed by an abstract mental process. And as discussed above, the additional limitations which are underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 do not recite further limitations that cause claim’s 1, 15 and 20 to be patent eligible. Showcasing a controlling element for the aerial vehicle is utilizing the transmitted information and would overcome the 101 rejections for Claims 1, 9 and 10.
Claim(s) 1-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “value” in claim 1, 2, 4-5, and 9-10 is unclear as there is no definition of how it is calculated and no objective boundary for the value.
The terms “out-of-region” in claims 1-4 and 10 are not defined by the claim, the term is ambiguous as to boundary conditions and what is considered an out-of-region vehicle, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “heading toward the fixed position” in claims 1 and 10 are not clearly described as Examiner is unsure the criteria in dictating what is meant by this phrase, is there a trajectory in deciding in being heading toward the fixed position? Is there a distance being met? Is there an angle threshold taken into consideration when determining how a vehicle is heading toward the fixed position?
The term “closest vehicle” in claims 4 and 9 are unclear as Examiner is unsure what is being taken into determining a closest vehicle, is it distance? Is it time? Is a closest vehicle using a predicted path?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 non-obviousness.
12. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisanaga (US 20210209949) in view of Kajiki (US 20140132441).
Regarding Claim 1, Hisanaga discloses An observation apparatus comprising: an observer configured to observe an object in an observation area; (Hisanaga, see at least [0165-0167] wherein a roadside unit includes roadside sensor 11 in which detects a traffic situations in a specific road area. Also see Fig. 4 in which shows the roadside sensor 11 directed to monitoring over a vehicle within an monitored area.)
a memory configured to store a fixed position of the observer and the observation area; (Hisanaga, see at least [0054-0058] wherein the roadside recognizer 12 includes a RPU and a main memory that stores data needed for executing a program by the CPU and Fig. 4 wherein a roadside unit includes roadside sensor 11 in which is installed at a fixed location and is associated with a predefined coverage area.)
a communicator configured to acquire, from a vehicle, vehicle information containing a position of the vehicle; (Hisanaga, see at least [0089] wherein the communication system, roadside apparatus, and vehicles can communicate and exchange information with one another. Also see [0067-0069] wherein vehicles can transmit vehicle information, such as information of position of the vehicle, to the roadside apparatus.)
the objects being to be contained in first notification information to be transmitted to the out-of-region vehicle, the out-of- region vehicle being one of the at least one vehicle configured to transmit the vehicle information and being located outside the observation area and heading toward the fixed position. (Hisanaga, see at least Fig. 4 and [0095] wherein camera 11a is capturing vehicle 33 approaching the intersection. Captured information is then transmitted to the vehicle 31 using roadside transceiver 14 as vehicle 31 is detected about to enter the intersection.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
Hisanaga does not explicitly disclose and a controller configured to, based on the fixed position, the observation area, and the vehicle information acquired from at least one vehicle, rank objects in the observation area in a descending order of a value for an out-of-region vehicle,
However, discloses Kajiki in which is directed too outputting selected object information to nearby vehicles and discloses and a controller configured to, based on the fixed position, the observation area, and the vehicle information acquired from at least one vehicle, rank objects in the observation area in a descending order of a value for an out-of-region vehicle, (Kajiki, see at least [0037] wherein position or velocity information of detected objects can be transmitted to requests from outside. Also see [0053] wherein the recognition processing unit sorts the distance data in order of distance between the observation reference line and the object** Kajiki does not explicitly disclose an out-of-region vehicle, but its implicitly stated as a request from outside of the radar detection. Hisanaga also discloses an out of region vehicle.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Hisanaga with the teachings of Kajiki to apply the techniques of determining relevance or priority of information based on vehicle-specific factors such as position/trajectory and further teaching ordering or prioritizing information. This can be used by the system of Hisanaga to improve communication efficiency and enhance safety by ensuring that the most relevant object information is provided to each vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2, Hisanaga in view of Kajiki discloses The observation apparatus according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the controller is configured to calculate priorities for the out-of-region vehicles, select a subset of the out-of-region vehicles based on the priorities, and rank the objects in the observation area in a descending order of the value for the subset of the out-of- region vehicles at a time that the subset of the out-of-region vehicles approaches the fixed position, and the objects are to be contained in the first notification information. (Hisanaga, see at least [0165-0167] and Fig. 11-Fig.12, wherein the vehicle 31 (Fig. 11, shows more than 1 vehicle 31) approaching the intersection is traveling at a constant speed and is to intersect the vehicle 71 as both vehicles are to cross the intersection. Information is being shared with the user of vehicle 31, in which the traffic object is enlarged to showcase that the vehicles are getting closer and closer to each other. ** information is being shared with the vehicle 31 that is closest and that is going to intersect with vehicle 71. Therefore, priority is given to vehicle in which is closest and going to cross intersection at the same time in which vehicle 71 is going to cross. ** ranking is also disclosed above in claim 1)
Regarding Claim 3, Hisanaga in view of Kajiki discloses The observation apparatus according claim 2, (see rejection above)
wherein the vehicle information contains a velocity and a direction of travel of a vehicle configured to transmit the vehicle information, and the controller is configured to render the priority highest for an out-of-region vehicle that approaches the fixed position earliest among the out-of-region vehicles. (Hisanaga, see at least [0165-0167] and Fig. 11-Fig.12, wherein the vehicle 31 (Fig. 11, shows more than 1 vehicle 31) approaching the intersection is traveling at a constant speed and is to intersect the vehicle 71 as both vehicles are to cross the intersection. Information is being shared with the user of vehicle 31, in which the traffic object is enlarged to showcase that the vehicles are getting closer and closer to each other. ** information is being shared with the vehicle 31 that is closest and that is going to intersect with vehicle 71. Therefore, priority is given to vehicle in which is closest and going to cross intersection at the same time in which vehicle 71 is going to cross.)
Regarding Claim 4, Hisanaga in view of Kajiki discloses The observation apparatus according to claim 3, (see rejection above)
wherein the controller is configured to estimate a time that each of the subset of the out-of-region vehicles approaches closest to the fixed position and render the value higher for an object located closer to the fixed position at the estimated time. (Hisanaga, see at least [0165-0167] and Fig. 11-Fig.12, wherein the vehicle 31 (Fig. 11, shows more than 1 vehicle 31) approaching the intersection is traveling at a constant speed and is to intersect the vehicle 71 as both vehicles are to cross the intersection. Information is being shared with the user of vehicle 31, in which the traffic object is enlarged to showcase that the vehicles are getting closer and closer to each other.)
Regarding Claim 5, Hisanaga in view of Kajiki discloses The observation apparatus according claim 4, (see rejection above)
wherein the object for which the value is rendered higher by the controller is an object that has yet to pass the fixed position at the estimated time. (Hisanaga, see at least [0165-0167] and Fig. 11-Fig.12, wherein the vehicle 31 (Fig. 11, shows more than 1 vehicle 31) approaching the intersection is traveling at a constant speed and is to intersect the vehicle 71 as both vehicles are to cross the intersection. Information is being shared with the user of vehicle 31, in which the traffic object is enlarged to showcase that the vehicles are getting closer and closer to each other.)
Regarding Claim 6, Hisanaga in view of Kajiki discloses The observation apparatus according to claim, (see rejection above)
wherein the controller is configured to include in the first notification information no object that passes the fixed position by the estimated time. (Hisanaga, see at least Fig. 15 and Fig. 17, wherein acquired information detected by the camera is transmitted to a vehicle outside the camera monitored region and the vehicle is being notified to objects that are going to pass the intersection, to make sure the driver understands to look out for these vehicles are they prepare to turn.)
Regarding Claim 7, Hisanaga in view of Kajiki discloses The observation apparatus according to claim 6, (see rejection above)
wherein the controller is configured to acquire an object to be contained in the first notification information by detection by the observer and by extraction from information regarding surroundings acquired from the vehicle, the object being in the observation area. (Hisanaga, see at least Fig. 16 and Fig. 17, wherein acquired information detected by the camera and transmitted to a vehicle outside the camera monitored region is being notified to the vehicle outside the camera monitored region.)
Regarding Claim 8, Hisanaga in view of Kajiki discloses The observation apparatus according to claim 7, (see rejection above)
wherein the information regarding surroundings contains an object located at a blind spot for the observer in the observation area. (Hisanaga, see at least Fig. 17, wherein vehicle 91 is presented in an area in which is incapable of being captured by the camera.)
Regarding Claim 9, Hisanaga discloses An information processing apparatus for vehicle mount, comprising: an acquirer configured to acquire from an observation apparatus first notification information regarding an object in an observation area of the observation apparatus, (Hisanaga, see at least Fig. 4 and [0095] wherein camera 11a is capturing vehicle 33 approaching the intersection. Captured information is then transmitted to the vehicle 31 using roadside transceiver 14 as vehicle 31 is detected about to enter the intersection.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
acquire, from a vehicle including the acquirer, first vehicle information containing a position of the vehicle and detection data regarding a nearby object, (Hisanaga, see at least [0089] wherein the communication system, roadside apparatus, and vehicles can communicate and exchange information with one another. Also see [0067-0069] wherein vehicles can transmit vehicle information, such as information of position of the vehicle, to the roadside apparatus.)
and acquire, from a second vehicle other than the vehicle, second vehicle information containing a position of the second vehicle; (Hisanaga, see at least [0089] wherein the communication system, roadside apparatus, and vehicles can communicate and exchange information with one another. Also see [0067-0069] wherein vehicles can transmit vehicle information, such as information of position of the vehicle, to the roadside apparatus.)
and a controller configured to identify a closest vehicle based on the first vehicle information and the second vehicle information and rank objects to be contained in second notification information in a descending order of a value for the identified vehicle, the objects being contained in the first notification information and in the detection data, the second notification information being to be transmitted to the identified vehicle. (Hisanaga, see at least Fig. 4 and [0095] wherein camera 11a is capturing vehicle 33 approaching the intersection. Captured information is then transmitted to the vehicle 31 using roadside transceiver 14 as vehicle 31 is detected about to enter the intersection.)
Hisanaga does not explicitly disclose and rank objects to be contained in second notification information in a descending order of a value for the identified vehicle
However, discloses Kajiki and rank objects to be contained in second notification information in a descending order of a value for the identified vehicle (Kajiki, see at least [0037] wherein position or velocity information of detected objects can be transmitted to requests from outside. Also see [0053] wherein the recognition processing unit sorts the distance data in order of distance between the observation reference line and the object** Kajiki does not explicitly disclose an out-of-region vehicle, but its implicitly stated as a request from outside of the radar detection. Hisanaga also discloses an out of region vehicle.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Hisanaga with the teachings of Kajiki to apply the techniques of determining relevance or priority of information based on vehicle-specific factors such as position/trajectory and further teaching ordering or prioritizing information. This can be used by the system of Hisanaga to improve communication efficiency and enhance safety by ensuring that the most relevant object information is provided to each vehicle.
As per claim 10, the claim is directed towards an information processing method that recites similar limitations performed by the observation apparatus of claim 1. The cited portions of Hisanaga and Kajiki used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200100120 – A communication apparatus comprises a first communication unit configured to transmit using a first antenna having directivity. The first communication unit transmits information from a beam of the directivity. The beam extends along a road.
US 11495064– The disclosure includes embodiments for providing value-based sensor data suppression in a cooperative perception message transmission by an ego vehicle. A method includes ascertaining, by a processor of the ego vehicle, a mounting height of a first sensor of the ego vehicle. The method includes calculating a value of sensor data recorded by the first sensor based on the mounting height. The method includes determining a satisfaction state of a threshold based on the value. The method includes determining to transmit the cooperative perception message without the sensor data based on the satisfaction date of the threshold so that value-based sensor data suppression is achieved. The sensor data is suppressed because it is not included in a payload of the cooperative perception message. The suppression is value-based because the sensor data is suppressed responsive to the threshold for value not being satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664