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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 12/09/2024.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2024 and 05/21/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banspach (DE 102020214516 A1), hereinafter Banspach.
Regarding claim 1, Gui discloses a radar-vision collaborative target tracking method (See at least “The infrastructure sensor or sensors are, for example, environment sensors such as cameras, radar sensors, lidar sensors, ultrasonic sensors that are designed to detect objects and other features of the environment based on technology-dependent detection options (such as detecting a road marking by a camera, etc.) within a specific detection area To classify and to determine properties (attributes) of the detected objects”) comprising the following limitations:
acquiring a first image of a first vehicle at an entry node, determining vehicle information of the first vehicle according to the first image (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12A, “The infrastructure sensor 12a, 12b, 12c, in whose detection range 20a, 20b, 20c the vehicle 1 is currently moving, detects relative attributes 15, e.g. the longitudinal position, the lateral position, a speed, etc. of the vehicle 1.”), and when the first vehicle reaches an identification point corresponding to the entry node, sending the vehicle information of the first vehicle and a time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the entry node to an intermediate node adjacent to the entry node (The Examiner further notes the recited "when the first vehicle reaches an identification point corresponding to the entry node" does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted " sending the vehicle information of the first vehicle and a time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the entry node to an intermediate node adjacent to the entry node" step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. );
at an intermediate node, determining the first vehicle according to a time point at which the first vehicle passes an identification point corresponding to a previous node and a position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node, acquiring first radar tracking information obtained by tracking the first vehicle starting from the identification point corresponding to the previous node, and determining driving information of the first vehicle according to the first radar tracking information; and when the first vehicle reaches an identification point corresponding to a current intermediate node, sending a time point at which the first vehicle reaches the identification point corresponding to the current intermediate node and the vehicle information of the first vehicle to a next node (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on the previous contingent limitation and thereby is not required to be performed. The Examiner further notes the recited "when the first vehicle reaches an identification point corresponding to a current intermediate node" does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "sending a time point at which the first vehicle reaches the identification point corresponding to the current intermediate node and the vehicle information of the first vehicle to a next node" step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. ); and
at an exit node, determining the first vehicle according to a time point at which the first vehicle passes an identification point corresponding to a previous node and a position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node, acquiring second radar tracking information obtained by tracking the first vehicle from the identification point corresponding to the previous node, determining driving information of the first vehicle according to the second radar tracking information, acquiring a second image of the first vehicle, determining vehicle information according to the second image, and when the vehicle information determined according to the second image matches the vehicle information of the first vehicle received from the previous node, determining that tracking of the first vehicle is correct, wherein at least one intermediate node is comprised between the entry node and the exit node (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on the previous contingent limitation and thereby is not required to be performed. The Examiner further notes the recited "when the vehicle information determined according to the second image matches the vehicle information of the first vehicle received from the previous node" does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "determining that tracking of the first vehicle is correct, wherein at least one intermediate node is comprised between the entry node and the exit node" step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].)
Regarding claim 2, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Banspach additionally discloses
sending lane information of the first vehicle to a next node when the first vehicle reaches an identification point corresponding to a current node, wherein at the intermediate node, determining the first vehicle according to the time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the previous node and the position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node comprises: at the intermediate node, determining the first vehicle according to the time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the previous node, the lane information of the first vehicle, and the position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node (The Examiner further notes the recited "when the first vehicle reaches an identification point corresponding to a current node" does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "sending lane information of the first vehicle to a next node" step and following steps not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Regarding claim 3, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Banspach additionally discloses
caching radar tracking data at at least one of the intermediate node or the exit node, wherein at the intermediate node, determining the first vehicle according to the time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the previous node and the position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node comprises: searching cached radar tracking data at the intermediate node, and determining the first vehicle from the cached radar tracking data according to the time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the previous node and the position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node; and wherein at the exit node, determining the first vehicle according to the time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the previous node and the position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node comprises: searching the cached radar tracking data at the exit node, and determining the first vehicle from the cached radar tracking data according to the time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the previous node and the position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. ).
Regarding claim 4, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Banspach additionally discloses
at the intermediate node, reporting the vehicle information and the driving information of the first vehicle to a management platform; at the exit node, reporting the vehicle information and the driving information of the first vehicle to the management platform, and when the tracking of the first vehicle is determined to be correct, reporting correct tracking information of the first vehicle to the management platform; and determining, by the management platform, a traffic behavior of a correctly tracked first vehicle according to the driving information of the correctly tracked first vehicle (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The Examiner further notes the recited "when the tracking of the first vehicle is determined to be correct" does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "reporting correct tracking information of the first vehicle to the management platform" step and following steps not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Regarding claim 5, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Banspach additionally discloses
assigning a vehicle identifier to the first vehicle at the entry node (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12A, “The infrastructure sensor 12a, 12b, 12c, in whose detection range 20a, 20b, 20c the vehicle 1 is currently moving, detects relative attributes 15, e.g. the longitudinal position, the lateral position, a speed, etc. of the vehicle 1.”), and when the vehicle information of the first vehicle and the time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the entry node are sent to the intermediate node adjacent to the entry node, carrying the vehicle identifier assigned to the first vehicle; and when the first vehicle is determined at the intermediate node or the exit node according to the time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the previous node and the position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node, inheriting the vehicle identifier of the first vehicle, and reporting the vehicle identifier of the first vehicle to the management platform (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The Examiner further notes the recited "when the vehicle information of the first vehicle and the time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the entry node are sent to the intermediate node adjacent to the entry node" does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "carrying the vehicle identifier assigned to the first vehicle" step and following steps not necessarily performed. The Examiner further notes the recited "when the first vehicle is determined at the intermediate node or the exit node according to the time point at which the first vehicle passes the identification point corresponding to the previous node and the position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node" does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted “inheriting the vehicle identifier of the first vehicle, and reporting the vehicle identifier of the first vehicle to the management platform" step and following steps not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Regarding claim 6, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 5. Banspach additionally discloses
at the intermediate node, in response to detecting that a second vehicle is blocked by a preset vehicle at a first time point and a first location, associating the second vehicle with the preset vehicle, and reporting vehicle information of the second vehicle, the first time point, the first location, and an identifier of the preset vehicle to the management platform; in response to detecting that a third vehicle appears after the preset vehicle, assigning a vehicle identifier to the third vehicle, recording a second time point and a second location when the third vehicle is discovered, and reporting the second time point and the second location to the management platform; and tracking the third vehicle, recording tracked driving information of the third vehicle, and when the third vehicle reaches the identification point corresponding to the current intermediate node, sending a time point at which the third vehicle reaches the identification point corresponding to the current intermediate node, vehicle information of the third vehicle, and the vehicle identifier of the third vehicle to the next node; wherein the preset vehicle is a vehicle that meets a preset size requirement; receiving, by the management platform, the driving information and the vehicle information of the third vehicle reported by the exit node, wherein the driving information of the third vehicle comprises a spatio-temporal trajectory; in response to determining that the third vehicle is a previously lost vehicle, acquiring the second time point and the second location of the third vehicle, searching a target preset vehicle whose spatio-temporal position matches the second time point and second location in the spatio-temporal trajectory, determining a first associated vehicle that is blocked by the target preset vehicle before the second time point, and acquiring an associated time point at which the target preset vehicle blocks the first associated vehicle; and splicing, by the management platform, a spatio-temporal trajectory of the first associated vehicle before the associated time point, a spatio-temporal trajectory of the target preset vehicle from the associated time point to the second time point, and a spatio-temporal trajectory of the third vehicle after the second time point to obtain a target temporary trajectory, determining whether the target temporary trajectory is correct according to whether vehicle information of the first associated vehicle and the vehicle information of the third vehicle are the same, and when the target temporary trajectory is correct, using the target temporary trajectory as a spatio-temporal trajectory of the third vehicle (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. ).
Regarding claim 7, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 4, 5and 6. Banspach additionally discloses
determining a preset vehicle, other than the target preset vehicle, that has a spatio-temporal intersection with the target preset vehicle before the second time point and has an associated vehicle, wherein a spatio-temporal intersection time point of an i-th preset vehicle and the target preset vehicle is an i-th intersection time point, an associated vehicle of the i-th preset vehicle is vehicle i, and a time point at which the i-th preset vehicle blocks the vehicle i is an i-th associated time point, wherein i is an integer from 1 to m, and m is greater than or equal to 1;generating an i-th temporary trajectory for the i-th preset vehicle,wherein in response to determining that the i-th associated time point is earlier than the i- th intersection time point, the i-th temporary trajectory is a spatio-temporal trajectory obtained by splicing a spatio-temporal trajectory of the vehicle i before the i-th associated time point, a spatio- temporal trajectory of the i-th preset vehicle from the i-th associated time point to the i-th intersection time point, a spatio-temporal trajectory of the target preset vehicle from the i-th intersection time point to the second time point, and a spatio-temporal trajectory of the third vehicle after the second time point;in response to determining that the i-th associated time point is later than the i-th intersection time point, the i-th temporary trajectory is a spatio-temporal trajectory obtained bysplicing the spatio-temporal trajectory of the vehicle i before the i-th associated time point, the spatio-temporal trajectory of the target preset vehicle from the i-th associated time point to the second time point, and the spatio-temporal trajectory of the third vehicle after the second time point; anddetermining whether the i-th temporary trajectory is correct according to whether vehicle information of vehicle i and the vehicle information of the third vehicle are the same, and when the i-th temporary trajectory is correct, using the i-th temporary trajectory as the spatio-temporal trajectory of the third vehicle. (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. ).
Regarding claim 8, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Banspach additionally discloses
the vehicle information comprises at least one of the following: a license plate number or a vehicle feature vector (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12A, “The relative attributes of the vehicle detected by the infrastructure sensor(s) include, for example, a distance of the vehicle from the infrastructure sensor, a lateral and/or longitudinal position of the vehicle relative to the infrastructure sensor, a speed or a speed component of the vehicle and/or a direction of movement of the vehicle.” Banspach discloses a feature vector comprising the above components); and the driving information comprises at least one of the following: a trajectory, a speed, or a traffic violation (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Regarding claim 11, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Banspach additionally discloses
the vehicle information comprises at least one of the following: a license plate number or a vehicle feature vector (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12A, “The relative attributes of the vehicle detected by the infrastructure sensor(s) include, for example, a distance of the vehicle from the infrastructure sensor, a lateral and/or longitudinal position of the vehicle relative to the infrastructure sensor, a speed or a speed component of the vehicle and/or a direction of movement of the vehicle.” Banspach discloses a feature vector comprising the above components); and the driving information comprises at least one of the following: a trajectory, a speed, or a traffic violation (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Regarding claim 12, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Banspach additionally discloses
the vehicle information comprises at least one of the following: a license plate number or a vehicle feature vector (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12A, “The relative attributes of the vehicle detected by the infrastructure sensor(s) include, for example, a distance of the vehicle from the infrastructure sensor, a lateral and/or longitudinal position of the vehicle relative to the infrastructure sensor, a speed or a speed component of the vehicle and/or a direction of movement of the vehicle.” Banspach discloses a feature vector comprising the above components); and the driving information comprises at least one of the following: a trajectory, a speed, or a traffic violation (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Regarding claim 13, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Banspach additionally discloses
the vehicle information comprises at least one of the following: a license plate number or a vehicle feature vector (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12A, “The relative attributes of the vehicle detected by the infrastructure sensor(s) include, for example, a distance of the vehicle from the infrastructure sensor, a lateral and/or longitudinal position of the vehicle relative to the infrastructure sensor, a speed or a speed component of the vehicle and/or a direction of movement of the vehicle.” Banspach discloses a feature vector comprising the above components); and the driving information comprises at least one of the following: a trajectory, a speed, or a traffic violation (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Regarding claim 14, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 5. Banspach additionally discloses
the vehicle information comprises at least one of the following: a license plate number or a vehicle feature vector (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12A, “The relative attributes of the vehicle detected by the infrastructure sensor(s) include, for example, a distance of the vehicle from the infrastructure sensor, a lateral and/or longitudinal position of the vehicle relative to the infrastructure sensor, a speed or a speed component of the vehicle and/or a direction of movement of the vehicle.” Banspach discloses a feature vector comprising the above components); and the driving information comprises at least one of the following: a trajectory, a speed, or a traffic violation (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Regarding claim 15, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 4, 5, and 6. Banspach additionally discloses
the vehicle information comprises at least one of the following: a license plate number or a vehicle feature vector (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12A, “The relative attributes of the vehicle detected by the infrastructure sensor(s) include, for example, a distance of the vehicle from the infrastructure sensor, a lateral and/or longitudinal position of the vehicle relative to the infrastructure sensor, a speed or a speed component of the vehicle and/or a direction of movement of the vehicle.” Banspach discloses a feature vector comprising the above components); and the driving information comprises at least one of the following: a trajectory, a speed, or a traffic violation (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Regarding claim 16, Banspach, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Banspach additionally discloses
the vehicle information comprises at least one of the following: a license plate number or a vehicle feature vector (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12A, “The relative attributes of the vehicle detected by the infrastructure sensor(s) include, for example, a distance of the vehicle from the infrastructure sensor, a lateral and/or longitudinal position of the vehicle relative to the infrastructure sensor, a speed or a speed component of the vehicle and/or a direction of movement of the vehicle.” Banspach discloses a feature vector comprising the above components); and the driving information comprises at least one of the following: a trajectory, a speed, or a traffic violation (The Examiner notes that this limitation additionally relies on previous contingent limitations and thereby is not required to be performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) 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(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 9-10 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of independent claim 9. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 9, the intermediate node is configured to determine the first vehicle according to a time point at which the first vehicle passes an identification point corresponding to a previous node and a position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node, acquire first radar tracking information obtained by tracking the first vehicle starting from the identification point corresponding to the previous node, and determine driving information of the first vehicle according to the first radar tracking information; and when the first vehicle reaches an identification point corresponding to a current intermediate node, send a time point at which the first vehicle reaches the identification point corresponding to the current intermediate node and the vehicle information of the first vehicle to a next node; and the exit node is configured to determine the first vehicle according to a time point at which the first vehicle passes an identification point corresponding to a previous node and a position of the identification point corresponding to the previous node, acquire second radar tracking information obtained by tracking the first vehicle from the identification point corresponding to the previous node, determine driving information of the first vehicle according to the second radar tracking information, acquire a second image of the first vehicle, determine vehicle information according to the second image, and when the vehicle information determined according to the second image matches the vehicle information of the first vehicle received from the previous node, determine that tracking of the first vehicle is correct.
Accordingly, independent claim 9 is deemed allowable. Claim 10 is allowed by virtue of their dependence on allowable independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (US 20230098688 A1) - System and methods for separating the computation of map feature derivation from the traditional computing pipeline. One or more mapping variables for a sensitive location on a roadway are calculated ahead of time using mapping data derived from previously identified map feature data. When a real time request for processing near the sensitive location is received, the mapping system calculates one or more classification variables for the sensitive location using sensor data included in the request and the previously calculated mapping variables. The classification variables are input into a model configured to output a classification for one or more location features at the sensitive location. The classification is then provided in response to the request.
Kang (KR 20220072056 A) - A traffic safety service system and method of a tunnel are disclosed. A traffic safety service system for a tunnel according to an aspect of the present invention detects a road side unit (RSU) installed at at least one of an entrance and an exit of a tunnel, and a situation inside and outside the tunnel in a predetermined area at the entrance/exit of the tunnel, and , determines whether an unexpected situation has occurred inside/outside the tunnel based on the sensed inside/outside situation of the tunnel and a transmitting tunnel condition detection device.
Gui (CN 114170807 A) - The invention claims a vehicle track information obtaining method, device, device and storage medium. The method comprises: obtaining the first vehicle information detected by the first path side device, and obtaining the second vehicle information detected by at least one second path side device, the first path side device and at least one of the second path side device are set on different positions of the same road node; according to the first vehicle information detected by the first road side device, and at least one second vehicle information detected by the second road side device, generating the track information of at least one vehicle. The method of the invention sets the road side device at the intersection of the road and the road node, and detects the road vehicle information, so as to quickly and accurately obtain the track information of the vehicle.
Tao (CN 113139494 A) - The invention claims a dangerous chemical vehicle tunnel tracking identification and automatic warning system, comprising a hazardous chemical vehicle identification module, a hazardous chemical vehicle tracking module; an abnormal event monitoring module and an abnormal event warning module; the dangerous goods vehicle identification module identifies the vehicle at the tunnel entrance is the license plate of the dangerous goods vehicle and the dangerous goods vehicle; the hazardous chemical vehicle tracking module obtains the real-time position of the dangerous goods vehicle in the tunnel from the vehicle video information and the radar data; abnormal event monitoring module determines the dangerous vehicle abnormal event occurs in the tunnel, generating the abnormal event alarm signal, and the abnormal event alarm signal is transmitted to the abnormal event warning module for warning. The invention realizes the identification and tracking of the dangerous goods vehicle in the tunnel, and can real-time monitor the operation condition of the dangerous goods vehicle; when the abnormal event occurs, timely warning, effectively solving the problem that the safety dangerous goods vehicle passing through the tunnel of the tunnel.
Zhang (CN 213123276 U) - The utility model belongs to the technical field of traffic safety, relating to a dangerous chemical vehicle in and out tunnel early warning and protection system. It is composed of a pre-warning device and a precaution device; the early warning device comprises a networked radar vehicle tracking detector with microprocessor, high definition bayonet camera, variable speed limit mark and tunnel broadcast; The protection device comprises a dangerous chemical vehicle appointed lane and an explosion-proof cover cloth supply device. Compared with the existing technology, the utility model claims a dangerous goods vehicle in and out tunnel early warning and protection system for realizing dangerous goods vehicle real-time tracking in the tunnel, capable of the position of the vehicle in the tunnel, the track is real time master; it can accurately identify the dangerous chemical vehicle in the tunnel; it fills the technical blank that the hazardous chemical vehicle cannot perform real-time location in the tunnel; and it provides the precautionary measure for the accident.
Hamilton (US 20200370890 A1) - Systems, methods, and computer-readable media are disclosed for increasing the accuracy of vehicle positioning. Example methods may include transmitting, by an on-board unit, a message including a motion information associated with the vehicle; determining, by a processor, a signal comprising modulating radiation, the signal identifying the vehicle; receiving, by the on-board unit, an additional message, the additional message including location information and a timestamp; and determining a location of the vehicle based on the location information.
Shapiro (US 20200326417 A1) - A system and method using a multi-node radar system involve receiving reflected signals at each node of the multi-node radar system, the reflected signals resulting from reflection of transmitted signals by one or more objects, and generating velocity lines associated with each of the reflected signals received at each of the nodes, each velocity line being derived from a radial velocity Vr and an angle of arrival θ determined from the reflected signal received at the node. The method also includes determining one or more intersection points of the velocity lines, and estimating a velocity of each of the one or more objects based on the one or more intersection points. Each intersection point corresponds with the velocity for one of the one or more objects and the velocity is a relative velocity vector between the one of the one or more objects and the radar system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
