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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on June 12, 2025 amending claims 1-14, cancelling claims 15-20, and adding new claims 21-26. No new matter was added. The independent claims are 1, 14, and 24. Accordingly, the pending claims and those subject to examination are claims 1-14 and 21-26. The drawings and specification amended November 1, 2024 are accepted and entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the same item numbers, such as 140a, are labeled as different parts in the figures and discussed as different parts in the specification. Fig. 20 and Fig. 21 share items numbers, such as item 140a and 140c. But item number 140a in Fig. 20 is labeled as the “power supply unit,” while the same item number in Fig. 21 is labeled as the “driving unit”. Note that both Fig. 20 and 21 are supposed to represent, as an overall item, item 100, which is the host vehicle. The specification also refers to these same item numbers in different ways. Paragraph 182 refers to Fig. 20 as having an “I/O unit 140c,” while paragraph 186 refers to Fig. 21 as having “a sensor unit 140c.”
The examiner recommends amending the drawings and specification to use different item numbers. For example, since Fig. 20 uses item numbers 140a-d, perhaps Fig. 21 should start with item number 140e and go from there. Thus the “driving unit (140a)” in Fig. 21 could be relabeled item 140e and the specification updated. There may be more examples than what the examiner has provided here.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. (FP 6.22.03)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the occupancy probability information is determined by summing a value related to current occupancy possibility of the zone multiplied by a first weight and a value related to future occupancy possibility of the zone multiplied by a second weight,
wherein the value related to current occupancy possibility and the value related to future occupancy possibility are generated based on the first information or the second information,
wherein a sum of the first weight and the second weight is 1,
wherein the second weight is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 1, and
wherein the second weight is determined based on property of the zone or driving environment of the at least one device.
The disclosure does not describe what “a value” is and how “a first weight” and a “second weight” are determined. The disclosure merely recites the claim language found in the claim.
Claim 22 is similarly rejected and recites similar language to claim 9. It recites:
The first device of claim 14, wherein
the occupancy probability information is determined by summing a value related to current occupancy possibility of the zone multiplied by a first weight and a value related to future occupancy possibility of the zone multiplied by a second weight, and
wherein the value related to current occupancy possibility and the value related to future occupancy possibility are generated based on the first information or the second information.
Claim 25 is similarly rejected and recites similar language to claim 9. It recites:
The processing device of claim 24, wherein
the occupancy probability information is determined by summing a value related to current occupancy possibility of the zone multiplied by a first weight and a value related to future occupancy possibility of the zone multiplied by a second weight, and
wherein the value related to current occupancy possibility and the value related to future occupancy possibility are generated based on the first information or the second information.
For examination purposes, claim 9, 22, and 25 will be examined as written.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The present claims are very opaque. This is especially true of the independent claims. Claim 1 recites “a first device,” “at least one device,” and “one or more devices”. Later in claim 1 or in its dependents, the claims recite “the first device,” “the at least one device” and “the one or more devices”. This shows that the applicant intends these three quoted terms to be proper nouns.
But is the “a first device” and the “one device” potentially included in the “one or more devices”? Couldn’t the “at least one device” be just one device in some embodiments, and then, if the “one or more devices” was also just “one device,” then there would be two “one device[s]”.
The examiner views the confusing language in the claims relating to devices as not “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter” of the invention.
In the present disclosure, paragraph 148 recites: “at least one device including the second device”. So “the at least one device” is “a second device”. The examiner strongly suggests amending the claims to replace “at least one device” with “at least one second device”. Thus there will be “a first device,” and an “at least one second device”. Note that changing this term does not exclude the “at least one second device” from being the same type as “a first device.” Perhaps both are vehicles, but it is clearer which one is the host vehicle.
But what about the last of the three terms, “one or more devices”. What is it and how can it be made clear?
To answer that it is helpful to think of what the claims mean in one broad reasonable interpretation. Fig. 4 and associated paragraphs are key here. The idea is that a host vehicle may want to change into a zone such as the one labeled 422 in Fig. 4. But another vehicle, such as vehicle 403, may indent on changing lanes into that zone right at the same time. How to keep the vehicles from colliding? Why not have a V2V system that communicates intended movements into zones. Such a system might also include a cellular or internet network with towers 200, which are devices, as shown in Figs. 16 and 17. Fig. 17 labels item 200 a “second device”. There might also be roadside units (RSU), such as cameras along the road, as shown in Fig. 7. These RSU are also devices, no doubt.
Basically, the one or more vehicles and one or more RSUs can share information either directly with the host vehicle, or through a network. This information can include information about zones within lanes and used for navigation and collision avoidance.
It’s possible that the applicant does not want to use the term “host vehicle” or “ego vehicle” because the “a first device” could be a robot, furthermore, it might not actually be the “host vehicle” such much as the controller of the host vehicle that is the first device. In any case, it is not the “a first device” that we need a clearer term for, it is the “one or more devices”.
How do the dependent claims describe the “at least one device,” and “one or more devices”?
In one broad reasonable interpretation, the “a first device” is the host vehicle.
Claim 4 teaches that there is a “predicted driving path or a planned driving path of the at least one device.” Thus in one broad reasonable interpretation, the “at least one device” is another vehicle. This another vehicle provides “first information” including about the another vehicle’s own dynamics or statics to the host vehicle.
Claim 5 teaches that “the first information is received from an external server including a traffic information center server.” Claim 1 already recited that “first information [is] related to an occupancy of a zone by at least one device”. Therefore, this “first information” is sent by “an external server”. This doesn’t entirely rule out the idea that the another vehicle (which in one embodiment is the “at least one device” in claim 1) sends a message intended for the host vehicle, yet that message actually is routed to a server before it is sent to the host vehicle. In fact, that scenarios is very possible.
Is this external server what claim 1 means when it recites “one or more devices”? It does not appear so, because claim 5 says the server transmits first information, but claim 1 says, in one interpretation that the “one or more devices” is associated with “second information”. This is found in claim 5 where it recites: “obtaining [by the first device, i.e., the host vehicle] second information related to an occupancy of the zone by one or more devices, based on a sensor of the first device [i.e., the host vehicle]”. The fact that the “second information” is “based on a sensor of the” host vehicle, appears to mean that the host vehicle’s camera or other sensors (lidar perhaps) can also capture zone occupancy information. This makes sense. A host vehicle with driver assist or full autonomy would generally use its own sensors and also V2X to determine where it can and cannot drive.
So then what is the “one or more devices” recited in claim 1. In one broad reasonable interpretation, they are sensors of the host vehicle. The applicant should amend the claims to state “one or more sensors” instead of “one or more devices”. This interpretation is supposed by Fig. 21 which shows “sensor unit” item 140c of the host vehicle 100. See paragraph 187 for the sensors. The applicant could also suggest a better solution for make the claims particularly pointed out by not reciting the term “devices” so many times.
In a second 35 USC 112(b) rejection, claim 1 recites: “obtaining [by the first device, i.e., the host vehicle] second information related to an occupancy of the zone by one or more devices, based on a sensor of the first device [i.e., the host vehicle]”. It is unclear if this means: 1) obtaining by one or more devices, and based on a sensor of the first device, second information related to an occupancy of the zone. Or if this means 2) obtaining, based on a sensor of the first vehicle, second information related to an occupancy of the zone by one or more devices that occupy the zone. In 1) we don’t know what occupies the zone, in 2) we know what occupies the zone, it is the one or more devices. In other words, what does “by one or more devices” modify?
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim using interpretation 2).
The reason for that choice has to do with how claim 11 should be interpreted.
Claim 11 recites that “the occupancy probability information is transmitted to the at least one device or the one or more devices, through a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) message.” It would not make sense to use interpretation “1)” above in claim 11 because that would mean that in clam 11 the host vehicle sends occupancy probability information to its own sensors. Therefore, “the one or more devices” must not be the host vehicle’s own sensors. Rather, they must be something that can occupy a zone because claim 1 recites “obtaining [by the first device, which is the host vehicle] second information related to an occupancy of the zone by one or more devices”. Thus the ”one or more devices” will be interpreted as: one or more additional devices. In other words, the “at least one device” appears to be another vehicle, and the “one or more [additional] devices” are additional vehicles or anything connected to the V2X network, as shown in Fig. 1.
In a third 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the same logic applies to the phrase in claim 1 “receiving [by the first device] first information related to an occupancy of a zone by at least one device”. Is it the at least one device that occupies a zone, or is it that the at least one devices does the receiving, such that the clause could read: receiving, by at least one device, first information related to an occupancy of a zone? In this case, the examiner will interpret this clause as: “receiving [by the first device] first information related to an occupancy of a zone by at least one device”.
The other independent claims, claims 14 and 24, recite similar clauses, are similarly rejected, and will be similarly interpreted.
In summary, claim 1 will be interpreted for examination purposes as follows, with the examiners notes in bold:
Claim 1 as interpreted:
A method for performing wireless communication by a first device [which in one broad reasonable interpretation is a host vehicle (or its controller)], the method comprising:
obtaining [by the first device, which is the host vehicle] zone configuration information;
receiving [by the first device, which is the host vehicle] first information related to an occupancy of a zone by at least one [second] device [which is at is at least one other vehicle in one broad reasonable interpretation];
obtaining [by the host vehicle] second information related to an occupancy of the zone by one or more [additional] devices, based on a sensor of the first device [which is the host vehicle];
determining [by the first device, which is the host vehicle] occupancy probability information of the zone, based on the first information and the second information; and
transmitting [by the first device, which is the host vehicle] the occupancy probability information [to the one or more second devices or one or more additional devices].
Based on this interpretation, claim 11 can be interpreted as follows: “the occupancy probability information is transmitted to the at least one device [which can be at least one other vehicle] or the one or more [additional] devices, through a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) message.”
The examiner notes that, as explained above, it is not until claim 4 that the “at least one device” is being related to a “planned driving path” and therefore basically narrowing the “at least one device” to another vehicle. Therefore, in claim 1 the applicant could recite “by at least one [second] device [which can be any device connected to the V2X network except the first device that is]”. This is supported by at least Fig. 1. Claim 4 would then have to narrow from there and the V2X network would have to be introduced in claim 1.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 1-14, 21, 23, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonntag et al. (US2017/0021864) in view of Kim (US2019/0077402).
Regarding claim 1 [as interpreted, with the examiner’s notes within brackets in bold and the examiner’s art rejection in parenthesis in bold. The notes are intended to show one way in which the examiner is interpreting the claims. The examiner is not limiting the claims to this interpretation nor reading the spec into the claims.], Sonntag teaches:
A method for performing wireless communication by a first device [which in one broad reasonable interpretation is a host vehicle, or its controller], the method comprising (see Sonntag, Fig. 1):
obtaining [by the first device, which is the host vehicle] zone configuration information (see Sonntag, Fig. 1, item 101 and item 103, and paragraph 0050. See also Fig. 3, attached below, for zones 303);
receiving [by the first device, which is the host vehicle] first information related to an occupancy of a zone by at least one [second] device [which is at is at least one other vehicle in one broad reasonable interpretation] (see Fig. 1, item 105. See paragraph 0028 for “Car2X” technology on the host vehicle. This reasonably means V2X. See paragraph 0069 for “a detected object (for example another vehicle)”. This reasonably means that the host vehicle can receive V2X messages from the “another vehicle”.);
obtaining [by the host vehicle] second information related to an occupancy of the zone by one or more [additional] devices, based on a sensor of the first device [which is the host vehicle] (it’s reasonable that there would be more than one “another vehicle” with which the host vehicle could communicate via V2X. See also paragraph 0069 for a “detected object” which could be a static object. See paragraph 0069 for “another or further vehicle”.);
determining [by the first device, which is the host vehicle] occupancy probability information of the zone, based on the first information and the second information (see Fig. 1, item 105. See paragraph 0068 for obtaining “occupancy probabilities for the individual cells”. See paragraph 0071 for this being done “for the individual cells 303”.).
Yet Sonntag does not explicitly further teach:
transmitting [by the first device, which is the host vehicle] the occupancy probability information [to the one or more second devices or one or more additional devices].
However, Kim teaches:
transmitting [by the first device, which is the host vehicle] the occupancy probability information [to the one or more second devices or one or more additional devices] (see Kim, paragraph 0329).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sonntag, to add the additional features of transmitting the occupancy probability information, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent collisions with other vehicles and objects, such as those shown in Fig. 6, thereby improving host vehicle driver convenience and safety, as recognized by Kim (see paragraphs 0019 and 0433).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Sonntag and Kim are very compatible. See Kim Fig. 15 which is very similar to Sonntag Fig. 3, attached below.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sonntag et al. (US2017/0021864), Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 2, Sonntag and Kim teach the method of claim 1.
Sonntag further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the first information is received from the at least one device through an awareness message (see paragraph 0028 for “Car2X” technology on the host vehicle. This reasonably means V2X. See paragraph 0069 for “a detected object (for example another vehicle)”. This reasonably means that the host vehicle can receive V2X messages from the “another vehicle”).
Note that Klomp et al. (WO2021/052658), cited presently as a teaching reference, and in the “Additional Art” section of this detailed action, teaches on page 2 of the attached English translation that V2V communication between vehicles is “standardized messages (cooperative Awareness messages (CAM)).” Thus, V2V messages, especially about a vehicle’s position, are awareness messages by definition.
Regarding claim 3, Sonntag and Kim teach the method of claim 2.
Yet Sonntag does not explicitly further teach
The method of claim 2, wherein
the first information includes first static information related to the at least one device, and
wherein the first static information includes information related to a size or a type of the at least one device.
However, Kim teaches:
the first information includes first static information related to the at least one device (see paragraph 0059), and
wherein the first static information includes information related to a size or a type of the at least one device (see paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sonntag and Kim, to add the additional features of the first information includes first static information related to the at least one device, and wherein the first static information includes information related to a size or a type of the at least one device, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent collisions with other vehicles and objects, such as those shown in Fig. 6, thereby improving host vehicle driver convenience and safety, as recognized by Kim (see paragraphs 0019 and 0433).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Sonntag at least strongly teaches toward what Kim more explicitly teaches. See Sonntag paragraph 0069 for detecting the “object position of the detected object,” which implies the object’s size.
Regarding claim 4, Sonntag and Kim teach the method of claim 2.
Sonntag further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein
the first information includes first dynamic information related to the at least one device (see paragraph 0069 for detecting the detected objects relative speed), and
wherein the first dynamic information includes information related to a velocity, an acceleration, a position, a direction, a driving intention, a predicted driving intention, a predicted driving path or a planned driving path of the at least one device (see paragraph 0069 for detecting the detected objects relative speed).
Regarding claim 5, Sonntag and Kim teach the method of claim 1.
Yet Sonntag does not further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the first information is received from an external server including a traffic information center server.
However, Kim teaches:
the first information is received from an external server including a traffic information center server (see paragraph 0005 for “a server provides traffic information”. See also 0175).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sonntag and Kim, to add the additional features of the first information is received from an external server including a traffic information center server, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent collisions with other vehicles and objects, such as those shown in Fig. 6, thereby improving host vehicle driver convenience and safety, as recognized by Kim (see paragraphs 0019 and 0433).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 6, Sonntag and Kim teach the method of claim 5.
Sonntag further teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein
the first information includes at least one of
signal phase and timing information of a traffic light system, high definition map information (see paragraph 0061), traffic condition information or road management information.
Note that Sonntag teaches “current traffic signal” information in paragraph 0159 and Kim teaches traffic light data in paragraph 0059.
Regarding claim 7, Sonntag and Kim teach the method of claim 1.
Yet Sonntag does not further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the second information includes second static information related to the one or more devices, and
wherein the second static information includes at least one of
information related to
parking or stopping of the one or more devices, or
information related to a type of the one or more devices.
However, Kim teaches:
the second information includes second static information related to the one or more devices (see paragraph 0059), and
wherein the second static information includes at least one of
information related to
parking or stopping of the one or more devices, or
information related to a type of the one or more devices (see paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sonntag and Kim, to add the additional features of the second information includes second static information related to the one or more devices, and wherein the second static information includes information related to information related to a type of the one or more devices, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent collisions with other vehicles and objects, such as those shown in Fig. 6, thereby improving host vehicle driver convenience and safety, as recognized by Kim (see paragraphs 0019 and 0433).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Sonntag at least strongly teaches toward what Kim more explicitly teaches. See Sonntag paragraph 0069 for detecting the “object position of the detected object,” which implies the object’s size.
Regarding claim 8, Sonntag and Kim teach the method of claim 1.
Sonntag further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the second information includes second dynamic information related to the one or more devices (see paragraph 0069 for detecting the detected objects relative speed), and
wherein the second dynamic information includes at least one of acceleration information, deceleration information or direction information of the one or more devices (see paragraph 0069 for detecting the detected objects relative speed. Data collected for another vehicle is also collected for the additional vehicles.).
Regarding claim 10, Sonntag and Kim teach the method of claim 1.
Sonntag further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the occupancy probability information is determined based on being quantified as a percentage (see paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 11, Sonntag and Kim teach the method of claim 1.
Yet Sonntag does not further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the occupancy probability information is transmitted to the at least one device or the one or more devices, through a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) message.
However, Kim teaches:
transmitting [by the first device, which is the host vehicle] the occupancy probability information [to the one or more second devices or one or more additional devices] (see Kim, paragraph 0329. See paragraph 0165 for V2X).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sonntag and Kim, to add the additional features of the occupancy probability information is transmitted to the at least one device or the one or more devices, through a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) message, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent collisions with other vehicles and objects, such as those shown in Fig. 6, thereby improving host vehicle driver convenience and safety, as recognized by Kim (see paragraphs 0019 and 0433.).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
See also Sonntag paragraph 0028 for “Car2X” which is V2X
Regarding claim 12, Sonntag and Kim teach the method of claim 11.
Yet Sonntag does not further teach:
The method of claim 11, wherein
the V2X message includes at least one of a sensor data sharing message (SDSM) or a collective perception message (CPM).
However, Kim teaches:
the V2X message includes at least one of a sensor data sharing message (SDSM) or a collective perception message (CPM) (see paragraphs 0175-0178 for the intelligent traffic system server sharing data such as “information received from a other vehicle” and “various sensed values of the other vehicle”. That is sensor data sharing communicated as a message.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sonntag and Kim, to add the additional features of the V2X message includes at least one of a sensor data sharing message (SDSM) or a collective perception message (CPM), as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent collisions with other vehicles and objects, such as those shown in Fig. 6, thereby improving host vehicle driver convenience and safety, as recognized by Kim (see paragraphs 0019 and 0433.).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 13, Sonntag and Kim teach the method of claim 1.
Sonntag further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein
the zone is configured based on the zone configuration information (what does this clause mean? In the present specification, paragraphs 141-142 use the language of this claim but does not go into detail about what “property of the zone” means. That phrase is only mentioned in paragraphs 138 and 142. It seems that the zone might be configured, at least longitudinally, based on lane lines. Paragraphs 86-88 discuss how to divide zones of the road. Road width, lane direction, and lane information can be used. Also “statistical information of road user motion (e.g., moving speed, congestion, etc.).”
With that in mind, see Sonntag paragraph 0059-0061 for the occupancy grid being “formed on the basis of the detected surroundings” including “the direction of travel” and the lane markings. See paragraph 0066 for setting the length of the zone based on the “length of the host vehicle” as well as the aggressiveness of the driver.), and
wherein the zone configuration information includes at least one of
(i) statistical information related to the at least one device or the one or more devices, or
(ii) information related to property of the zone (see Sonntag paragraphs 0059-0061 for lane lines and map data, which are properties of the zone.).
Regarding claim 14, Sonntag teaches:
A first device adapted to perform wireless communication, the first device comprising (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0052 for the device 201 being on a vehicle. See paragraph 0028 for the device being used for Car2X communication.):
at least one transceiver (see paragraph 0028, for the host vehicle having “Car2X technology”.);
at least one processor (see Fig. 2, item 205); and
at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed, cause the first device to perform operations comprising (see Fig. 2 and the last sentence of paragraph 0023):
obtaining zone configuration information (see Sonntag, Fig. 1, item 101 and item 103, and paragraph 0050. See also Fig. 3, attached herein, for zones 303);
receiving first information related to an occupancy of a zone by at least one device (see Fig. 1, item 105. See paragraph 0028 for “Car2X” technology on the host vehicle. This reasonably means V2X. See paragraph 0069 for “a detected object (for example another vehicle)”. This reasonably means that the host vehicle can receive V2X messages from the “another vehicle”.);
obtaining second information related to an occupancy of the zone by one or more devices, based on a sensor of the first device (it’s reasonable that there would be more than one “another vehicle” with which the host vehicle could communicate via V2X. See also paragraph 0069 for a “detected object” which could be a static object. See paragraph 0069 for “another or further vehicle”.);
determining occupancy probability information of the zone, based on the first information and the second information (see Fig. 1, item 105. See paragraph 0068 for obtaining “occupancy probabilities for the individual cells”. See paragraph 0071 for this being done “for the individual cells 303”.).
Yet Sonntag does not explicitly further teach:
transmitting the occupancy probability information.
However, Kim teaches:
transmitting the occupancy probability information (see Kim, paragraph 0329).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sonntag, to add the additional features of transmitting the occupancy probability information, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent collisions with other vehicles and objects, such as those shown in Fig. 6, thereby improving host vehicle driver convenience and safety, as recognized by Kim (see paragraphs 0019 and 0433).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Sonntag and Kim are very compatible. See Kim Fig. 15 which is very similar to Sonntag Fig. 3, attached below.
Regarding claim 21, see the rejection of claim 2 which is substantially similar.
Regarding claim 23, see the rejection of claim 13 which is substantially similar.
Regarding claim 24, Sonntag teaches:
A processing device adapted to control a first device to perform wireless communication, the processing device comprising (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0052 for the device 201 with processor 205. The device 201 is on a vehicle. See paragraph 0028 for the device 201 being used for Car2X communication.):
at least one processor (see Fig. 2, item 205); and
at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (see Fig. 2 and the last sentence of paragraph 0023):
obtaining zone configuration information (see Sonntag, Fig. 1, item 101 and item 103, and paragraph 0050. See also Fig. 3, attached herein, for zones 303);
receiving first information related to an occupancy of a zone by at least one device (see Fig. 1, item 105. See paragraph 0028 for “Car2X” technology on the host vehicle. This reasonably means V2X. See paragraph 0069 for “a detected object (for example another vehicle)”. This reasonably means that the host vehicle can receive V2X messages from the “another vehicle”.);
obtaining second information related to an occupancy of the zone by one or more devices, based on a sensor of the first device (it’s reasonable that there would be more than one “another vehicle” with which the host vehicle could communicate via V2X. See also paragraph 0069 for a “detected object” which could be a static object. See paragraph 0069 for “another or further vehicle”.);
determining occupancy probability information of the zone, based on the first information and the second information (see Fig. 1, item 105. See paragraph 0068 for obtaining “occupancy probabilities for the individual cells”. See paragraph 0071 for this being done “for the individual cells 303”.).
Yet Sonntag does not explicitly further teach:
transmitting the occupancy probability information.
However, Kim teaches:
transmitting the occupancy probability information (see Kim, paragraph 0329).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sonntag, to add the additional features of transmitting the occupancy probability information, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent collisions with other vehicles and objects, such as those shown in Fig. 6, thereby improving host vehicle driver convenience and safety, as recognized by Kim (see paragraphs 0019 and 0433).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Sonntag and Kim are very compatible. See Kim Fig. 15 which is very similar to Sonntag Fig. 3, attached below.
Regarding claim 26, see the rejection of claim 13 which is substantially similar.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Klomp et al. (WO2021/052658), teaches on page 2 of the attached English translation that V2V communication between vehicles is “standardized messages (cooperative Awareness messages (CAM)).” Thus, V2V messages, especially about a vehicle’s position, are awareness messages by definition.
Sharma Banjade et al. (US2023/0095384), hereinafter Banjade. See claim 59 for a determining the probability that a cell is occupied, and a user “generating a vulnerable road user awareness message (VAM)” including the cell the vehicle is located in. See also Fig. 9, noting that all kinds of objects can be in the grid in other embodiments, including vehicles.
Resch (US2025/0100551) teaches “probabilities of occupancy” of regions of lanes. See Fig. 2 attached below.
PNG
media_image2.png
778
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chen (WO2022205243) teaches occupancy regions. See Figs. 11, 12, 19, and 20 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
932
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
766
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665