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 statements submitted on 9/12/24 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7, 8, & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barrett, US 20210345074 A1 (hereinafter Barrett).
Regarding claim 1, Barrett teaches a method for determining a need for a message content for a transmitting station, comprising the following steps: determining an anticipated need for a message content according to one or more receiver stations, (Barrett; para. 18-21 - - teaches and identifies the foreseeable requirements (interpreted as anticipated need) of receiver stations, specifically receiver stations that need to determine trustworthiness of the transmitting entity across aspects such as functional safety (emergency brake example as seen in para. 18), cyber security (ensuring transmitting entity not hacked as seen in para. 19), and ensuring transmitting entity is not faulty (as seen in para. 18), wherein this is in regards to the V2X message).
wherein the anticipated need with respect to the message content is based on a need of the transmitting station; (Barrett; para. 72 & 73 - - teaches one principle within the Intelligent Transportation System is that the privacy of the transmitting entity should be respected. […] As described in more detail below, in order to overcome this, in some cases a transmitting entity could have a plurality of certificates associated with it. In particular, a transmitting entity could have a “ordinary” certificate without any special permissions, and another certificate with the SSP set for advanced capabilities. In this case, the transmitting entity would only use the SSP certificate when the message warranted it, and use the ordinary certificate everywhere else.)
computing at least one metadata configuration for the message content based on the determining of the anticipated need for the message content; (Barrett; para. 159 - - computing at least one code for securing (in other words, encoding) for the trust levels (which are part of the message content) based on the determined foreseeable requirements for the trust levels).
and augmenting the message content based on the computed at least one metadata configuration, wherein the metadata configuration specifies in which way the message content is to be adapted dependent on the one or more receiver stations and/or according to a message type to be transmitted. (Barrett; para. 172 & 173 - - teaches providing safety assurance information such as the FuSa and/or the SOTIF in the certificate, this information may be provided in the V2X message body. Specifically, the V2X message body may be augmented with an information element that indicates the SOTIF level).
Regarding claim 7, Barrett teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the message type is a vehicle-to-everything message. (Barrett; para. 1 & 27 - - teaches the present disclosure relates to Vehicle to Everything (V2X) communications. Barrett further teaches in para. 27 that the present disclosure is related to V2X, which is a feature that provides for communication of information from a vehicle to other entities (and possibly also vice versa) that may affect the vehicle and/or the other entities).
Regarding claim 8, Barrett teaches a station configured to determine a need for a message content, the station configured to: determine an anticipated need for a message content according to one or more receiver stations, (Barrett; para. 18-21 - - teaches and identifies the foreseeable requirements (interpreted as anticipated need) of receiver stations, specifically receiver stations that need to determine trustworthiness of the transmitting entity across aspects such as functional safety (emergency brake example as seen in para. 18), cyber security (ensuring transmitting entity not hacked as seen in para. 19), and ensuring transmitting entity is not faulty (as seen in para. 18), wherein this is in regards to the V2X message).
wherein the anticipated need with respect to the message content is based on a need of the transmitting station; (Barrett; para. 72 & 73 - - teaches one principle within the Intelligent Transportation System is that the privacy of the transmitting entity should be respected. […] As described in more detail below, in order to overcome this, in some cases a transmitting entity could have a plurality of certificates associated with it. In particular, a transmitting entity could have a “ordinary” certificate without any special permissions, and another certificate with the SSP set for advanced capabilities. In this case, the transmitting entity would only use the SSP certificate when the message warranted it, and use the ordinary certificate everywhere else.)
compute at least one metadata configuration for the message content based on the determining of the anticipated need for the message content; (Barrett; para. 159 - - the encoding could include aggregated assurance levels or trust levels as items within an appPermissionsAndAssurance information element).
and augment the message content based on the computed at least one metadata configuration, wherein the metadata configuration specifies in which way the message content is to be adapted dependent on the one or more receiver stations and /or according to a message type to be transmitted. (Barrett; para. 172 & 173 - - teaches providing safety assurance information such as the FuSa and/or the SOTIF in the certificate, this information may be provided in the V2X message body. Specifically, the V2X message body may be augmented with an information element that indicates the SOTIF level).
Regarding claim 9, Barrett teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which are stored instructions for determining a need for a message content for a transmitting station, the instructions, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
determining an anticipated need for a message content according to one or more receiver stations, (Barrett; para. 18-21 - - teaches and identifies the foreseeable requirements (interpreted as anticipated need) of receiver stations, specifically receiver stations that need to determine trustworthiness of the transmitting entity across aspects such as functional safety (emergency brake example as seen in para. 18), cyber security (ensuring transmitting entity not hacked as seen in para. 19), and ensuring transmitting entity is not faulty (as seen in para. 18), wherein this is in regards to the V2X message).
wherein the anticipated need with respect to the message content is based on a need of the transmitting station; (Barrett; para. 72 & 73 - - teaches one principle within the Intelligent Transportation System is that the privacy of the transmitting entity should be respected. […] As described in more detail below, in order to overcome this, in some cases a transmitting entity could have a plurality of certificates associated with it. In particular, a transmitting entity could have a “ordinary” certificate without any special permissions, and another certificate with the SSP set for advanced capabilities. In this case, the transmitting entity would only use the SSP certificate when the message warranted it, and use the ordinary certificate everywhere else.)
computing at least one metadata configuration for the message content based on the determining of the anticipated need for the message content; (Barrett; para. 159 - - teaches in another embodiment, the encoding could include aggregated assurance levels or trust levels as items within an appPermissionsAndAssurance information element).
and augmenting the message content based on the computed at least one metadata configuration, wherein the metadata configuration specifies in which way the message content is to be adapted dependent on the one or more receiver stations and/or according to a message type to be transmitted. (Barrett; para. 172 & 173 - - teaches as an alternative to providing safety assurance information such as the FuSa and/or the SOTIF in the certificate, this information may be provided in the V2X message body. Specifically, the V2X message body may be augmented with an information element that indicates the SOTIF level).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett, US 20210345074 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Johnson, US 20190311613 A1 (hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 2, Barrett teaches the method of claim 1. Barrett further teaches assembling the metadata based on the aggregated metadata configuration; and sending the message content including at least the assembled metadata and/or payload data. (Barrett; para. 117 - - teaches the ITS-S Sending Entity 310, when wishing to send a V2X message, typically creates a V2X message that includes a certificate (Authorization Ticket) and a payload (e.g. vehicle current position, speed).
Barrett fails to teach further comprising the following steps: aggregating the at least one metadata configuration dependent on the one or more receiver stations and/or on a use case, wherein the use case defines a scenario related to the station, wherein the scenario includes a sequence of actions and interactions that take place between the station and a system to accomplish a task.
However, Johnson teaches further comprising the following steps: aggregating the at least one metadata configuration dependent on the one or more receiver stations and/or on a use case, wherein the use case defines a scenario related to the station, wherein the scenario includes a sequence of actions and interactions that take place between the station and a system to accomplish a task (Johnson; col. 13, claim 10 - - teaches wherein the instructions to collect the position data (interpreted as metadata) include instructions to aggregate the position data in the electronic data store as the reporting vehicles travel over the roadway segment and communicate the position data to a remote device (interpreted as dependent on the one or more receiver stations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Johnson into the invention of Barrett to include the feature of aggregating the at least one metadata configuration dependent on the one or more receiver stations and/or on a use case, wherein the use case defines a scenario related to the station, wherein the scenario includes a sequence of actions and interactions that take place between the station and a system to accomplish a task, in order to provide receiver stations with consolidated and complete metadata configurations from multiple sources rather than requiring each receiver to independently collect metadata from individual transmitting stations, improving efficiency of metadata delivery and reducing redundant transmissions over the V2X channel (see Johnson; col. 13, claim 10).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett, US 20210345074 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Myr, US 6480783 B1 (hereinafter Myr).
Regarding claim 3, Barrett teaches the method of claim 1. Barrett further teaches wherein, during the determining, at least one of: the anticipated need with respect to the message content is based on information with respect to the one or more receiver stations; (Barrett; para. 18-21 - - teaches and identifies the foreseeable requirements (interpreted as anticipated need) of receiver stations, specifically receiver stations that need to determine trustworthiness of the transmitting entity across aspects such as functional safety (emergency brake example as seen in para. 18), cyber security (ensuring transmitting entity not hacked as seen in para. 19), and ensuring transmitting entity is not faulty (as seen in para. 18), wherein this is in regards to the V2X message).
Barrett fails to teach wherein the anticipated need according to the one or more receiver stations is based on semantic information from an environment of the transmitting station and/or from an environment of the one or more receiver stations based on a map.
However, Myr teaches wherein the anticipated need according to the one or more receiver stations is based on semantic information from an environment of the transmitting station and/or from an environment of the one or more receiver stations based on a map. (Myr; col. 1, lines 45-48 - - teaches for detecting traffic jams and representing them in its database (interpreted as anticipated need according to the vehicle/receiver station), this patent uses data obtained from other traveling vehicles, in particular their IDs, positions, times, and speeds (interpreted as semantic information)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Myr into the invention of Barrett to include the feature of wherein the anticipated need according to the one or more receiver stations is based on semantic information from an environment of the transmitting station and/or from an environment of the one or more receiver stations based on a map, in order to enable the transmitting station to use map-based environmental data about surrounding receiver stations to better anticipate what message content receiver stations will need for their driving functions, improving the relevance and accuracy of V2X message content transmitted to receiver stations operating in dynamic traffic environments (see Myr; col. 1, lines 45-48).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett, US 20210345074 A1 in view of Myr, US 6480783 B1, as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Lin, US 20190232972 A1 (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Barrett and Myr teaches the method of claim 3. The combination of Barret and Myr fails to teach further comprising the following steps: generating a profile for the at least one metadata configuration, selecting the profile based on requirements for the message content related to the transmitting station and/or based on the information from the one or more receiver stations and/or from the environment of the one or more other stations based on the map, wherein the profile specifies a predefined function of the station and/or a predefined use case for the station.
However, Lin teaches further comprising the following steps: generating a profile for the at least one metadata configuration, (Lin; para. 11 & 54 - - teaches generating a BSM profile corresponding to the DSRC data 195 (interpreted as a profile for the contained data format inside the DSRC data, referred to as metadata configuration). Wherein the DSRC data comprises multiple profiles.
selecting the profile based on requirements for the message content related to the transmitting station and/or based on the information from the one or more receiver stations and/or from the environment of the one or more other stations based on the map, (Lin; para. 32 & 54- - teaches selecting a BSM profile based on safety requirements as required by the message from one or more vehicles and/or vehicle environment (stations)). Further, Lin teaches there are other profiles to select from, such as the ADAS system).
wherein the profile specifies a predefined function of the station and/or a predefined use case for the station. (Lin; para. 11 & 54- - teaches specifying wherein the predefined function is a safety function, or wherein a predefined use case is a safety use case. The use case is interpreted as a specific situation of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lin into the invention of the combination of Barrett and Myr to include the feature of generating a profile for the at least one metadata configuration, selecting the profile based on requirements for the message content related to the transmitting station and/or based on the information from the one or more receiver stations and/or from the environment of the one or more other stations based on the map, wherein the profile specifies a predefined function of the station and/or a predefined use case for the station, in order to enable the transmitting station to efficiently select a precomputed metadata configuration profile tailored to its specific transmission function and use case rather than computing metadata configurations from scratch for each transmission, improving efficiency and accuracy of metadata selection across multiple V2X application types and use cases (see Lin; para. 11, 32, 54).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett, US 20210345074 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Kourous, US 20200365029 A1 (hereinafter Kourous).
Regarding claim 5, Barrett teaches the method of claim 1. Barrett fails to teach further comprising the following step: eliminating at least one part of payload data based on the computed at least one metadata configuration, wherein the computed at least one metadata configuration indicates a low value of information for the payload data.
However, Kourous teaches further comprising the following step: eliminating at least one part of payload data based on the computed at least one metadata configuration (Kourous; para 58 - - vehicles 102 and infrastructure may be configured to send sensor data to one another (interpreted as payload data) including UUIDs of the objects in a distributed synchronized approach. Kourous teaches eliminating redundant information content to preserve communication channel bandwidth.)
wherein the computed at least one metadata configuration indicates a low value of information for the payload data (Kourous; para 58 - - teaches wherein conditions including the UUIDs that have not changed are considered low-value information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kourous into the invention of Barrett to include the feature of eliminating at least one part of payload data wherein the computed at least one metadata configuration indicates a low value of information for the payload data, in order to reduce redundant sensor data transmissions over the V2X communication channel by identifying and eliminating payload data elements that have not changed and therefore carry lo informational value to receiver stations, improving efficiency of V2X message transmission and reducing unnecessary channel bandwidth consumption (see Kourous; para 58).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett, US 20210345074 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Simoudis, US 20200364953 A1 (hereinafter Simoudis).
Regarding claim 6, Barrett teaches the method of claim 1. Barrett fails to teach further comprising the following step: storing the at least one metadata configuration according to the one or more receiver stations and/or according to the message type to be transmitted.
However, Simoudis teaches further comprising the following step: storing the at least one metadata configuration according to the one or more receiver stations and/or according to the message type to be transmitted. (Simoudis; para. 61 - - the provided data management system may further comprise a data and metadata management system that is configured to store and manage the data and associated metadata that is generated by the autonomous vehicle (interpreted as the receiver station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Simoudis into the invention of Barrett to include the feature of storing the at least one metadata configuration according to the one or more receiver stations and/or according to the message type to be transmitted, in order to enable the transmitting station to efficiently retrieve and reuse previously computed metadata configurations for specific receiver stations and message types rather than recomputing them for each transmission, improving efficiency and consistency of metadata configuration management across multiple V2X message types and receiver stations (see Simoudis; para. 61).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRES RAFAEL SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8776. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-9:00.
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.
/ANDRES RAFAEL SANCHEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights