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 .
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim recites abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because (mental-process evaluations and logical/mathematical comparisons of identifier to infer collision) implemented on generic data flows (receiving a V2X message).
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al. (Pub# US 2018/0052005 A1) (Applicant Admitted Prior Art), and further in view of Graefe et al. (Pub # US 2019/0132709 A1) (Applicant Admitted Prior Art).
Consider claim 1, Schilling et al. teaches a method of performing vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication, the method comprising: determining a road on which a vehicle is traveling [0024].
Schilling et al. does not teach determining an identification value associated with the road and transmitting a V2X message from the vehicle to a recipient, the V2X message comprising the identification value associated with the road.
In the same field of endeavor, Graefe et al. teaches determining an identification value associated with the road and transmitting a V2X message from the vehicle to a recipient, the V2X message comprising the identification value associated with the road [0066] for the benefit of encode the “road context” as an identifier tied to a traffic map.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining an identification value associated with the road and transmitting a V2X message from the vehicle to a recipient, the V2X message comprising the identification value associated with the road as shown in Graefe et al., in Schilling et al. method for the benefit of encode the “road context” as an identifier tied to a traffic map.
Consider claim 2, Schilling et al. teaches the similar invention.
Schilling et al. does not teach the method, wherein the identification value is a unique identifier of the road.
In the same field of endeavor, Graefe et al. teaches wherein the identification value is a unique identifier of the road [0068] for the benefit of enhance the traffic map.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the identification value is a unique identifier of the road as shown in Graefe et al., in Schilling et al. method for the benefit of enhance the traffic map.
Consider claim 3, Schilling et al. clearly shown and disclose the method, wherein determining the identification value associated with the road comprises accessing at least one of satellite navigation, terrestrial navigation, and an electronic map [0024].
Consider claim 4, Schilling et al. teaches a method of determining a possible collision between vehicles the method comprising: determining a first road on which a first vehicle is traveling; receiving from a second vehicle a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) message, the V2X message with a second road on which the second vehicle is traveling; and determining the possible collision between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on the first vehicle travel information and the second vehicle travel information [0024].
Schilling et al. does not teach determining a first identification value associated with the first road and a second identification value associated with a second road on which the second vehicle is traveling.
In the same field of endeavor, Graefe et al. determining a first identification value associated with the first road and a second identification value associated with a second road on which the second vehicle is traveling [0066] for the benefit of encode the “road context” as an identifier tied to a traffic map.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining a first identification value associated with the first road and a second identification value associated with a second road on which the second vehicle is traveling as shown in Graefe et al., in Schilling et al. method for the benefit of encode the “road context” as an identifier tied to a traffic map.
Consider claim 5, Schilling et al. teaches the method determining the possible collision based on a first result of determining that the first vehicle information and the second vehicle information or a second result of determining that the first road intersects the second road [0024].
Schilling et al. does not teach determining whether the first identification value matches the second identification value; determining whether the first road associated with the first identification value intersects the second road associated with the second identification value.
In the same field of endeavor, Graefe et al. teaches determining whether the first identification value matches the second identification value; determining whether the first road associated with the first identification value intersects the second road associated with the second identification value [0068] for the method for the benefit of enhance the traffic map using unique identifier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining whether the first identification value matches the second identification value; determining whether the first road associated with the first identification value intersects the second road associated with the second identification value as shown in Graefe et al., in Schilling et al. method for the method for the benefit of enhance the traffic map using unique identifier.
Consider claim 6, Schilling et al. clearly shown and disclose the method, wherein the first road comprises accessing at least one of satellite navigation, terrestrial navigation, and an electronic map [0024].
Consider claim 7, Schilling et al. clearly shown and disclose the method, wherein determining the possible collision comprises: predicting a first position of the first vehicle based on first motion data of the first vehicle; predicting a second position of the second vehicle based on second motion data of the second vehicle; and determining the possible collision based on the first position and the second position [0031-0032].
Consider claim 8, Schilling et al. clearly shown and disclose the method, wherein predicting the first position and predicting the second position comprises accessing at least one of vehicle sensors, satellite navigation, and terrestrial navigation [0025].
Consider claim 9, Schilling et al. clearly shown and disclose the method, wherein the V2X message comprises the second motion data [0022].
Consider claim 10, Schilling et al. clearly shown and disclose the method, further comprising determining the first vehicle approaches an intersection or a bridge, wherein determining the possible collision comprises determining the possible collision in response to determining the first vehicle approaches the intersection or the bridge [0026].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686