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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12 November 2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0284883).
For claim 1, Ferreira discloses a method comprising: receiving a first data from a detection system of a first vehicle, the first data being indicative of one or more objects in a surrounding of the first vehicle (see paras. 2241-2242, 2262; 2605), and the first data being at least partially based on a detection of the one or more objects in the surrounding of the first vehicle at detection times of the detection system (see paras. 2243-2251; 4970-4977, 2642), receiving second data from a detection system of a second vehicle, the second data being indicative of one or more objects in the surrounding of the first vehicle (see para. 2264, vehicle communicates with monitoring device, monitoring device may be second vehicle; paras. 2651-2652, MD senses environment; see paras. 5535, 5608, 5643, second vehicle sending data), and comparing the first data to the second data, wherein the method is configured to enable verification of first data from the detection system of the first vehicle (see paras. 5501, 5509-5510).
Ferreira does not explicitly disclose that detection occurs at random detection times. However, based on the teaching of varying time intervals used by Ferreira, continuous, arbitrary detection times are implicitly included in the teaching. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that the detection times of Ferreira may include randomized detection times based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve future mobility that will involve sensing systems, communication units, data storage devices, data computing and signal processing electronics as well as advanced algorithms and software solutions that may include and offer various ethical settings (see para. 0012).
With reference to claim 2, Ferreira does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Ferreira discloses that time intervals from the detection units can be determined based on system needs and that time periods are flexible (see paras. 2243-2251; 4970-4977, 2642). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that the random detection times of Ferreira may be randomized on the LIDAR and RADAR randomized detection timing based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve future mobility that will involve sensing systems, communication units, data storage devices, data computing and signal processing electronics as well as advanced algorithms and software solutions that may include and offer various ethical settings (see para. 0012).
Regarding claim 3, Ferreira further teaches determining a discrepancy between the first data and the second data based on the comparison of the first data to the second data (see paras. 5501, 5509-5510), wherein the determined discrepancy relates to presence of an object in the surrounding of the first vehicle (see para. 5510).
Referring to claim 4, Ferreira further teaches identifying an external attack against the detection system of the first vehicle based on the determined discrepancy (see para. 5470).
With regards to claim 5, Ferreira further discloses identifying objects on a road as discrepancy, and providing the identified discrepancy for transmittal to the second vehicle (see para. 5481; para. 2264, vehicle communicates with monitoring device, monitoring device may be second vehicle).
In reference to claim 6, Ferreira further teaches providing the first data for transmittal to the second vehicle (see para. 2664, vehicle communicates with monitoring device, monitoring device may be second vehicle; paras. 2651-2652, 5535, 5608, 5643).
For claim 7, Ferreira further teaches wherein the second data is from detection systems of multiple second vehicles (see para. 2664, not limited to a single device).
With reference to claim 8, Ferreira further discloses wherein the second data is directly received from the second vehicle (see para. 2664).
Regarding claim 9, Ferreira further teaches wherein the first data is based on at least two different detection units of the detection system of the first vehicle (see para. 2260).
Pertaining to claim 10, Ferreira further teaches wherein the at least two different detection units comprises a camera detection unit and at least one of a LiDAR detection unit and a radar detection unit (see para. 2301).
Referring to claim 11, Ferreira further discloses verifying individual data of the first data by comparing the individual data to one another, wherein the individual data comprises data from each one of the at least two different detection units (see paras. 5493-5496, 5501).
With regards to claim 12, Ferreira further teaches wherein the second data is at least partially anonymized (see para. 5376).
With reference to claim 13, Ferreira does not explicitly disclose that the anonymized data includes anonymized vehicle number plates and faces of persons. However, it is well known in the art that blurring such information protects an individual’s right to privacy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Ferriera to include anonymizing personal identifiable information such as vehicle number plates and human faces based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve future mobility that will involve sensing systems, communication units, data storage devices, data computing and signal processing electronics as well as advanced algorithms and software solutions that may include and offer various ethical settings (see para. 0012).
Claim 14 defines subject matter that is substantially similar to rejected claims 1 and 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claims 1 and 6.
Claim 15 defines subject matter that is substantially similar to rejected claim 2. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 2.
Claim 16 defines subject matter that is substantially similar to rejected claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 1.
Claim 17 defines subject matter that is substantially similar to rejected claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 3.
Claim 18 defines subject matter that is substantially similar to rejected claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 4.
Claim 19 defines subject matter that is substantially similar to rejected claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 5.
Claim 20 defines subject matter that is substantially similar to rejected claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 8.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663