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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/26/25 & 01/14/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “… of the processor,” that recites a comma after “processor” which is the last word of the limitation and appears to be a typographical error and should instead be written as a period (i.e. “… of the processor.”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MONTEUUIS et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0282109 herein after referenced as Monte) in view of ANSARI et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0300640 herein after referenced as Ansa).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 10, Monte discloses:
A method performed by a first device, the method comprising: and A first device comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to operate by executing the instructions, wherein operations of the processor comprise: receiving a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) message related to a maneuver sharing and coordinating service (MSCS) from a second device; (Monte, [0137] discloses As previously mentioned, a maneuver sharing coordination message MSCM is a V2X message (i.e. reads on a V2X message related to a MSCS) that can be used for the exchange (i.e. reads on receiving) of planned trajectories amongst vehicles (i.e. reads on performed by a first device and reads on from a second device) for performing driving coordination. The MSCM e.g., MSCM 1400 of FIG. 14 allows for the vehicles to share their maneuver intents to coordinate their planned maneuvers for safer and more efficient driving. A series of MSCMs transmitted amongst vehicles may be utilized for the coordination and performance of a maneuver. The series of MSCMs may consist of a handshaking session between the vehicles impacted by the intended maneuver. The use of MSCMs relies on the exchange of MSCMs and a communication protocol, such as a basic protocol e.g., basic protocol 1500 of FIG. 15 and emergency protocol e.g., emergency protocol 1600 of FIG. 16; Monte, [0123] discloses In some examples, the ITS 555 can determine certain operations e.g., V2X-based operations to perform based on messages received from other UEs. In some examples, the operations can include causing the vehicle e.g., the control system 552 to perform automatic functions, such as automatic breaking, automatic steering e.g., to maintain a heading in a particular lane, automatic lane change negotiation with other vehicles, among other automatic functions; Monte, [0068] discloses For example, an intelligent transport system ITS of a UE e.g., a vehicle and/or other UE can be used to generate and sign messages for transmission to an RSU and to validate messages received from an RSU; Monte, [0088] discloses The controller/processor 359 can be associated with a memory 360 that stores program codes and data. The memory 360 may be referred to as a computer-readable medium).
and determining whether to perform cooperative driving with the second device based on the V2X message, (Monte, [0123] discloses In some examples, the ITS 555 can determine certain operations e.g., V2X-based operations to perform based on messages (i.e. reads on based on the V2X message) received from other UEs. In some examples, the operations can include causing the vehicle e.g., the control system 552 to perform automatic functions, such as automatic breaking, automatic steering e.g., to maintain a heading in a particular lane, automatic lane change negotiation with other vehicles (i.e. reads on determining whether to perform cooperative driving with the second device), among other automatic functions; Monte, [0164] discloses In one or more examples, vehicle 1202 may use a series of MSCMs to coordinate the lane change maneuver with vehicles 1206 and 1208. The use of MSCMs allows for the coordination and sharing of maneuver intents amongst vehicles for better road coordination. Vehicles e.g., vehicles 1202, 1206, 1208 impacted by a potential maneuver e.g., a lane change can partake in a handshaking session using MSCMs to coordinate the maneuver. The handshaking session amongst the vehicles to coordinate a maneuver relies on the exchange of MSCMs and a communication protocol).
wherein the first device determines to perform the cooperative driving with the second device based on that a reliability assessment of the V2X message (Monte, [0061] discloses In addition or alternatively, in some aspects, the systems and techniques described herein may include one or more processes for maneuver ID collision detection. For example, a first process e.g., referred to as Process A can be performed to determine whether a newly received maneuver ID in a maneuver message e.g., the MSCM (i.e. reads on of the V2X message) for a particular maneuver session matches a locally generated maneuver ID e.g., using the hashing-based technique described above for the particular maneuver session. When a misbehavior has been detected e.g., for either or both of the processes A and B, the vehicle may generate a misbehavior report containing specific details of the detected misbehavior. The vehicle may transmit the misbehavior report to one or more other vehicles, to a server, or to another entity. If a misbehavior is not detected (i.e. reads on based on that a reliability assessment) e.g., the maneuver IDs match and/or the source IDs match, the vehicle can remain idle by processing the maneuver messages according to a common protocol (i.e. reads on wherein the first device determines to perform the cooperative driving with the second device); Monte, [0176] discloses There may be some situations where a maneuver negotiation, utilizing either the basic protocol 1500 or the emergency protocol 1600, may be aborted. Some situations where a maneuver negotiation may be aborted include, but are not limited to, an absence of a response within a certain predetermined amount of time, misbehavior attacks e.g., an attacker spoofing the source ID of a maneuver of a maneuver session, a malfunctional device e.g., a malfunctioning vehicle component preventing the maneuver from occurring, and non-compliance with the sequences outlined within the protocol e.g., the basic protocol 1500 of FIG. 15 or the emergency protocol 1600 of FIG. 16; Monte, [0164] discloses In one or more examples, vehicle 1202 may use a series of MSCMs to coordinate the lane change maneuver with vehicles 1206 and 1208. The use of MSCMs allows for the coordination and sharing of maneuver intents amongst vehicles for better road coordination. Vehicles e.g., vehicles 1202, 1206, 1208 impacted by a potential maneuver e.g., a lane change can partake in a handshaking session using MSCMs to coordinate the maneuver. The handshaking session amongst the vehicles to coordinate a maneuver relies on the exchange of MSCMs and a communication protocol).
and wherein the reliability assessment is performed based on a correlation between first object information included in the V2X message and second object information obtained (Monte, [0061] discloses In addition or alternatively, in some aspects, the systems and techniques described herein may include one or more processes for maneuver ID collision detection. For example, a first process e.g., referred to as Process A can be performed to determine whether a newly received maneuver ID (i.e. reads on based on a correlation between first object information) in a maneuver message e.g., the MSCM for a particular maneuver session (i.e. reads on included in the V2X message and) matches a locally generated maneuver ID (i.e. reads on second object information obtained in the first device) e.g., using the hashing-based technique described above for the particular maneuver session. When a misbehavior has been detected e.g., for either or both of the processes A and B, the vehicle may generate a misbehavior report containing specific details of the detected misbehavior. The vehicle may transmit the misbehavior report to one or more other vehicles, to a server, or to another entity. If a misbehavior is not detected (i.e. reads on wherein the reliability assessment is performed) e.g., the maneuver IDs match and/or the source IDs match, the vehicle can remain idle by processing the maneuver messages according to a common protocol).
Monte discloses comparing information received from a V2X message against information locally obtained to determine whether a misbehavior has occurred and if a misbehavior is not detected, further processing the V2X message to perform coordinated driving but fails to explicitly recite that said comparison utilizes the use of a threshold or that said locally obtained information utilizes the use of a local sensor equipped in the device and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the first device determines to perform the cooperative driving with the second device based on that a reliability assessment of the V2X message is more than or equal to a threshold, and wherein the reliability assessment is performed based on a correlation between first object information included in the V2X message and second object information obtained by a sensor equipped in the first device.”
In a related field of endeavor, Ansa discloses:
wherein the first device determines to perform the cooperative driving with the second device (Ansa, [0062] discloses In general, when the incoming V2X message does not include signs or indicators of misbehavior, the incoming V2X message may be further processed (i.e. reads on wherein the first device determines to perform cooperative driving) to increase awareness of the environment surrounding the host UE e.g., the locations and/or kinematic states of V2X devices and/or non-V2X objects that are in the environment surrounding the host UE. Alternatively, as shown by reference number 410, the host UE may report any misbehavior that the Rx-LMBDS detects in an incoming V2X message to a central authority e.g., by transmitting or otherwise communicating a message that relates to the detected misbehavior to a management entity; Ansa, [0059]-[0060] discloses For example, in some cases, a V2X-equipped UE may transmit a BSM or a CAM that contains information related to a position and a kinematic state of the transmitting UE, which other receiving UEs can use to enable anti-collision or other safety functions. When various V2X-equipped UEs are regularly exchanging information related to their respective positions and kinematic states, the receiving UEs may have sufficient information to control a speed, direction of travel, and/or braking to avoid collisions and maintain an efficient and safe position. In this way, V2X communication has the potential to improve traffic flow by safely reducing distances separating vehicles traveling on roadways, platooning several vehicles together, (i.e. reads on determining to perform cooperative driving with the second device) and/or avoiding vehicles that are experiencing breakdowns, among other examples and discloses Accordingly, because BSMs, CAMs, CPMs, and/or other V2X messages are designed to inform driving decisions that are made by human operators and/or automated driving systems, V2X communication needs to be highly reliable to satisfy mission-critical safety requirements. Accordingly, one or more misbehavior detection systems may be used in a V2X communication system to detect V2X misbehavior that occurs when an intelligent transportation system station ITS-S e.g., a vehicle, roadside unit RSU, network node, or other device equipped with V2X capabilities transmits false or misleading information, or information that was not authorized by local policy, whether purposefully or unintentionally. Accordingly, one or more misbehavior detection systems may be used to detect and mitigate potentially adverse conditions that may otherwise occur when misbehavior results in V2X messages carrying false, misleading, or unauthorized information).
based on that a reliability assessment of the V2X message is more than or equal to a threshold, (Ansa, [0067] discloses The position speed acceleration consistency detector may estimate the expected position of a remote vehicle in a current time step based on information related to a position, speed, and acceleration of the remote vehicle at a previous time step, which may be determined based at least in part on information from one or more local V2X information sources e.g., local speed and/or acceleration sensors. The expected position of the remote vehicle is then compared to the actual position of the remote vehicle at a current time step, which may be indicated in a BSM, CAM, or other incoming V2X message. If the Euclidean distance between the expected position and the actual position of the remote vehicle fail to satisfy a drift threshold (i.e. reads on is more than or equal to a threshold), the position speed acceleration consistency detector may detect Rx-side misbehavior in the incoming V2X message (i.e. reads on based on that a reliability assessment of the V2X message); Ansa, [0110] discloses As used herein, “satisfying a threshold” may, depending on the context, refer to a value being greater than the threshold, greater than or equal to the threshold, less than the threshold, less than or equal to the threshold, equal to the threshold, not equal to the threshold, or the like).
and wherein the reliability assessment is performed based on a correlation between first object information included in the V2X message and second object information obtained by a sensor equipped in the first device (Ansa, [0067] discloses The position speed acceleration consistency detector may estimate the expected position of a remote vehicle in a current time step based on information related to a position, speed, and acceleration of the remote vehicle at a previous time step, which may be determined based at least in part on information from one or more local V2X information sources e.g., local speed and/or acceleration sensors (i.e. reads on obtained by a sensor equipped in the first device). The expected position (i.e. reads on and second object information) of the remote vehicle is then compared (i.e. reads on based on a correlation between) to the actual position (i.e. reads on based on first object information) of the remote vehicle at a current time step, which may be indicated in a BSM, CAM, or other incoming V2X message (i.e. reads on included in the V2X message). If the Euclidean distance between the expected position and the actual position of the remote vehicle fail to satisfy a drift threshold, the position speed acceleration consistency detector may detect Rx-side misbehavior (i.e. reads on and wherein the reliability assessment is performed) in the incoming V2X message).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Monte to incorporate the teachings of Ansa for the purpose of providing the system with a means to utilize various different parameters and mechanisms in detecting inconsistencies and misbehavior between information from received V2x messages and local information (Ansa, [0059]-[0060], [0062] & [0067]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with added functionalities and various different alternatives in design, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and thereby, preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario (Monte, [0047], [0209] & [0215]) and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of comparing information received from a V2X message against information locally obtained to determine whether a misbehavior has occurred and if a misbehavior is not detected, further processing the V2X message as taught by Monte) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of comparing information received from a V2X message against information locally obtained to determine whether a misbehavior has occurred and if a misbehavior is not detected, further processing the V2X message, wherein the information may include various different information such as position detected by local sensors and wherein the comparing involves the use of a threshold wherein further processing is performed when equal to or above a threshold and misbehavior is detected when below a threshold and a misbehavior report is sent to a central authority as taught by Ansa) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of comparing information received from a V2X message against information locally obtained to determine whether a misbehavior has occurred and if a misbehavior is not detected, further processing the V2X message (i.e. as taught by both Monte & Ansa) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2, Monte in view of Ansa discloses:
The method of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein a maneuver negotiation procedure with the second device is performed based on that the reliability assessment of the V2X message is more than or equal to the threshold (Monte, [0123] discloses In some examples, the ITS 555 can determine certain operations e.g., V2X-based operations to perform based on messages received from other UEs. In some examples, the operations can include causing the vehicle e.g., the control system 552 to perform automatic functions, such as automatic breaking, automatic steering e.g., to maintain a heading in a particular lane, automatic lane change negotiation with other vehicles, among other automatic functions; Monte, [0061] discloses In addition or alternatively, in some aspects, the systems and techniques described herein may include one or more processes for maneuver ID collision detection. For example, a first process e.g., referred to as Process A can be performed to determine whether a newly received maneuver ID in a maneuver message e.g., the MSCM for a particular maneuver session matches a locally generated maneuver ID e.g., using the hashing-based technique described above for the particular maneuver session. When a misbehavior has been detected e.g., for either or both of the processes A and B, the vehicle may generate a misbehavior report containing specific details of the detected misbehavior. The vehicle may transmit the misbehavior report to one or more other vehicles, to a server, or to another entity. If a misbehavior is not detected e.g., the maneuver IDs match and/or the source IDs match, the vehicle can remain idle by processing the maneuver messages according to a common protocol; Monte, [0176] discloses There may be some situations where a maneuver negotiation, utilizing either the basic protocol 1500 or the emergency protocol 1600, may be aborted. Some situations where a maneuver negotiation may be aborted include, but are not limited to, an absence of a response within a certain predetermined amount of time, misbehavior attacks e.g., an attacker spoofing the source ID of a maneuver of a maneuver session, a malfunctional device e.g., a malfunctioning vehicle component preventing the maneuver from occurring, and non-compliance with the sequences outlined within the protocol e.g., the basic protocol 1500 of FIG. 15 or the emergency protocol 1600 of FIG. 16; Ansa, [0067] discloses The position speed acceleration consistency detector may estimate the expected position of a remote vehicle in a current time step based on information related to a position, speed, and acceleration of the remote vehicle at a previous time step, which may be determined based at least in part on information from one or more local V2X information sources e.g., local speed and/or acceleration sensors. The expected position of the remote vehicle is then compared to the actual position of the remote vehicle at a current time step, which may be indicated in a BSM, CAM, or other incoming V2X message. If the Euclidean distance between the expected position and the actual position of the remote vehicle fail to satisfy a drift threshold, the position speed acceleration consistency detector may detect Rx-side misbehavior in the incoming V2X message; Ansa, [0110] discloses As used herein, “satisfying a threshold” may, depending on the context, refer to a value being greater than the threshold, greater than or equal to the threshold, less than the threshold, less than or equal to the threshold, equal to the threshold, not equal to the threshold, or the like; Ansa, [0062] discloses In general, when the incoming V2X message does not include signs or indicators of misbehavior, the incoming V2X message may be further processed to increase awareness of the environment surrounding the host UE e.g., the locations and/or kinematic states of V2X devices and/or non-V2X objects that are in the environment surrounding the host UE. Alternatively, as shown by reference number 410, the host UE may report any misbehavior that the Rx-LMBDS detects in an incoming V2X message to a central authority e.g., by transmitting or otherwise communicating a message that relates to the detected misbehavior to a management entity. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that a misbehavior is not detected when the comparison is equal to or above a threshold and the V2X is further processed to perform the negotiation procedure and wherein a misbehavior is detected when the comparison is below a threshold where the negotiation procedure is aborted).
Regarding claim 3, Monte in view of Ansa discloses:
The method of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the first device performs the reliability assessment based on results of comparing at least one of location information, at least one of location information, (Ansa, [0067] discloses The position speed acceleration consistency detector may estimate the expected position of a remote vehicle in a current time step based on information related to a position, speed, and acceleration of the remote vehicle at a previous time step, which may be determined based at least in part on information from one or more local V2X information sources e.g., local speed and/or acceleration sensors. The expected position of the remote vehicle is then compared to the actual position of the remote vehicle at a current time step, which may be indicated in a BSM, CAM, or other incoming V2X message. If the Euclidean distance between the expected position and the actual position of the remote vehicle fail to satisfy a drift threshold, the position speed acceleration consistency detector may detect Rx-side misbehavior in the incoming V2X message. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “appearance information, or movement information”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 4, Monte in view of Ansa discloses:
The method of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the V2X message is related to at least one of a maneuver sharing and coordinating message (MSCM) (Monte, [0061] discloses In addition or alternatively, in some aspects, the systems and techniques described herein may include one or more processes for maneuver ID collision detection. For example, a first process e.g., referred to as Process A can be performed to determine whether a newly received maneuver ID in a maneuver message e.g., the MSCM for a particular maneuver session matches a locally generated maneuver ID e.g., using the hashing-based technique described above for the particular maneuver session. When a misbehavior has been detected e.g., for either or both of the processes A and B, the vehicle may generate a misbehavior report containing specific details of the detected misbehavior. The vehicle may transmit the misbehavior report to one or more other vehicles, to a server, or to another entity. If a misbehavior is not detected e.g., the maneuver IDs match and/or the source IDs match, the vehicle can remain idle by processing the maneuver messages according to a common protocol. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “a basic safety message (BSM), a sensor data sharing message (SDSM), or”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 5, Monte in view of Ansa discloses:
The method of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the first device stops a maneuver negotiation procedure with the second device based on that the reliability assessment of the V2X message is less than the threshold (Monte, [0176] discloses There may be some situations where a maneuver negotiation, utilizing either the basic protocol 1500 or the emergency protocol 1600, may be aborted. Some situations where a maneuver negotiation may be aborted include, but are not limited to, an absence of a response within a certain predetermined amount of time, misbehavior attacks e.g., an attacker spoofing the source ID of a maneuver of a maneuver session, a malfunctional device e.g., a malfunctioning vehicle component preventing the maneuver from occurring, and non-compliance with the sequences outlined within the protocol e.g., the basic protocol 1500 of FIG. 15 or the emergency protocol 1600 of FIG. 16; Monte, [0123] discloses In some examples, the ITS 555 can determine certain operations e.g., V2X-based operations to perform based on messages received from other UEs. In some examples, the operations can include causing the vehicle e.g., the control system 552 to perform automatic functions, such as automatic breaking, automatic steering e.g., to maintain a heading in a particular lane, automatic lane change negotiation with other vehicles, among other automatic functions; Monte, [0061] discloses In addition or alternatively, in some aspects, the systems and techniques described herein may include one or more processes for maneuver ID collision detection. For example, a first process e.g., referred to as Process A can be performed to determine whether a newly received maneuver ID in a maneuver message e.g., the MSCM for a particular maneuver session matches a locally generated maneuver ID e.g., using the hashing-based technique described above for the particular maneuver session. When a misbehavior has been detected e.g., for either or both of the processes A and B, the vehicle may generate a misbehavior report containing specific details of the detected misbehavior. The vehicle may transmit the misbehavior report to one or more other vehicles, to a server, or to another entity. If a misbehavior is not detected e.g., the maneuver IDs match and/or the source IDs match, the vehicle can remain idle by processing the maneuver messages according to a common protocol; Ansa, [0067] discloses The position speed acceleration consistency detector may estimate the expected position of a remote vehicle in a current time step based on information related to a position, speed, and acceleration of the remote vehicle at a previous time step, which may be determined based at least in part on information from one or more local V2X information sources e.g., local speed and/or acceleration sensors. The expected position of the remote vehicle is then compared to the actual position of the remote vehicle at a current time step, which may be indicated in a BSM, CAM, or other incoming V2X message. If the Euclidean distance between the expected position and the actual position of the remote vehicle fail to satisfy a drift threshold, the position speed acceleration consistency detector may detect Rx-side misbehavior in the incoming V2X message; Ansa, [0110] discloses As used herein, “satisfying a threshold” may, depending on the context, refer to a value being greater than the threshold, greater than or equal to the threshold, less than the threshold, less than or equal to the threshold, equal to the threshold, not equal to the threshold, or the like; Ansa, [0062] discloses In general, when the incoming V2X message does not include signs or indicators of misbehavior, the incoming V2X message may be further processed to increase awareness of the environment surrounding the host UE e.g., the locations and/or kinematic states of V2X devices and/or non-V2X objects that are in the environment surrounding the host UE. Alternatively, as shown by reference number 410, the host UE may report any misbehavior that the Rx-LMBDS detects in an incoming V2X message to a central authority e.g., by transmitting or otherwise communicating a message that relates to the detected misbehavior to a management entity. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that a misbehavior is not detected when the comparison is equal to or above a threshold and the V2X is further processed to perform the negotiation procedure and wherein a misbehavior is detected when the comparison is below a threshold where the negotiation procedure is aborted).
Regarding claim 6, Monte in view of Ansa discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising (see claim 1).
determining, by the first device, misbehavior of the second device based on that the reliability assessment of the V2X message is less than the threshold (Ansa, [0067] discloses The position speed acceleration consistency detector may estimate the expected position of a remote vehicle in a current time step based on information related to a position, speed, and acceleration of the remote vehicle at a previous time step, which may be determined based at least in part on information from one or more local V2X information sources e.g., local speed and/or acceleration sensors. The expected position of the remote vehicle is then compared to the actual position of the remote vehicle at a current time step, which may be indicated in a BSM, CAM, or other incoming V2X message. If the Euclidean distance between the expected position and the actual position of the remote vehicle fail to satisfy a drift threshold, the position speed acceleration consistency detector may detect Rx-side misbehavior in the incoming V2X message; Ansa, [0110] discloses As used herein, “satisfying a threshold” may, depending on the context, refer to a value being greater than the threshold, greater than or equal to the threshold, less than the threshold, less than or equal to the threshold, equal to the threshold, not equal to the threshold, or the like).
Regarding claim 7, Monte in view of Ansa discloses:
The method of claim 6, further comprising (see claim 6).
transmitting a signal for reporting the misbehavior of the second device to a misbehavior authority (MA) device (Ansa, [0062] discloses In general, when the incoming V2X message does not include signs or indicators of misbehavior, the incoming V2X message may be further processed to increase awareness of the environment surrounding the host UE e.g., the locations and/or kinematic states of V2X devices and/or non-V2X objects that are in the environment surrounding the host UE. Alternatively, as shown by reference number 410, the host UE may report any misbehavior that the Rx-LMBDS detects in an incoming V2X message to a central authority e.g., by transmitting or otherwise communicating a message that relates to the detected misbehavior to a management entity; Monte, [0061] discloses In addition or alternatively, in some aspects, the systems and techniques described herein may include one or more processes for maneuver ID collision detection. For example, a first process e.g., referred to as Process A can be performed to determine whether a newly received maneuver ID in a maneuver message e.g., the MSCM for a particular maneuver session matches a locally generated maneuver ID e.g., using the hashing-based technique described above for the particular maneuver session. When a misbehavior has been detected e.g., for either or both of the processes A and B, the vehicle may generate a misbehavior report containing specific details of the detected misbehavior. The vehicle may transmit the misbehavior report to one or more other vehicles, to a server, or to another entity. If a misbehavior is not detected e.g., the maneuver IDs match and/or the source IDs match, the vehicle can remain idle by processing the maneuver messages according to a common protocol).
Regarding claim 8, Monte in view of Ansa discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising (see claim 1).
identifying the second device (Monte, [0061] discloses In some cases, process A can further include verifying that the maneuver ID is generated by a particular source ID e.g., generated by the vehicle associated with the source ID of the maneuver; Monte, [0169] discloses In one or more examples, for the Source ID 1410 of the MSCM 1400, the Source ID of the last BSM transmitted by the source e.g., the vehicle, such as an HV, generating and transmitting the MSCM 1400 may be employed for the Source ID 1410 of the MSCM 1400. In some examples, the Source ID 1410 of the MSCM 1400 may be related to the digital certificate of the source e.g., the digital certificate of the vehicle generating and transmitting the MSCM 1400).
Regarding claim 9, Monte in view of Ansa discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program (Monte, [0088] discloses The controller/processor 359 can be associated with a memory 360 that stores program codes and data. The memory 360 may be referred to as a computer-readable medium).
for performing the method of claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Monte in view of Ansa discloses:
The first device of claim 10, further comprising (see claim 10).
a transceiver configured to transmit or receive wireless signals under control of the (Monte, [0128]-[0129] discloses The computing system 670 may also include one or more memory devices 686, one or more digital signal processors DSPs 682, one or more SIMs 674, one or more modems 676, one or more wireless transceivers 678 and discloses The one or more wireless transceivers 678 can receive wireless signals e.g., signal 688 via antenna 687 from one or more other devices, such as other user devices, vehicles e.g., vehicle 504 of FIG. 5 described above).
Regarding claim 12, Monte in view of Ansa discloses:
The first device of claim 10, (see claim 10).
wherein the first device is a (Monte, [0137] discloses As previously mentioned, a maneuver sharing coordination message MSCM is a V2X message that can be used for the exchange of planned trajectories amongst vehicles for performing driving coordination. The MSCM e.g., MSCM 1400 of FIG. 14 allows for the vehicles to share their maneuver intents to coordinate their planned maneuvers for safer and more efficient driving. A series of MSCMs transmitted amongst vehicles may be utilized for the coordination and performance of a maneuver. The series of MSCMs may consist of a handshaking session between the vehicles impacted by the intended maneuver. The use of MSCMs relies on the exchange of MSCMs and a communication protocol, such as a basic protocol e.g., basic protocol 1500 of FIG. 15 and emergency protocol e.g., emergency protocol 1600 of FIG. 16. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “V2X user equipment (UE)” and “or a road side unit (RSU)”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 PM 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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights