DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 20 May 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1, 2 and 14-16; Applicant did not cancel or add any new claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserted that the prior art of record did not disclose “randomized detection times”. Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior art of record teaches that “timing” pertains to deterministic scheduling of sensor operations whereas the claimed invention pertains to stochastic generation of detection events. Examiner does not agree.
First, Examiner interprets the limitation at issue such that the data is “at least partially based on detection of…objects…at randomized detection times”. Examiner does not interpret “detection times” as equivalent to “detection events”. The claim defines objects being detected at “randomized times”, it cannot be interpreted to define “randomized detection of objects”. Accordingly, as Ferreira teaches emitting laser pulses in a “time-stochastic manner” and “stochastic time variation” and a “stochastic scanning process” (see paras. 2275-2277), this stochastic generation of objects is equivalent to being “at least partially based on detection of…objects…at randomized detection times”.
Applicant further asserts that the prior art of record does not have the sufficient rationale to combine such timing with cross-vehicle data comparison. Examiner does not agree.
The prior art of record teaches that data collected by a vehicle in a stochastic manner is compared with data from a second vehicle (see para. 5535, another vehicle); further, it is taught that a first sensor data may be evaluated/compared in relation to a second sensor to “reduce the effect of a sophisticated attack” (see para. 5501). Applicant’s own specification describes producing “inconsistent detection data…used for identifying the external attack” (see para. 0015). Both the prior art and the claimed invention are directed toward substantially similar technology. These shared teachings are enough of a rationale to combine the teachings of the prior art together to read on the claimed invention.
Applicant also made a related assertion that the Office failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It was specifically asserted that the rejection lacked motivation and rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion. Examiner does not agree.
As asserted by Applicant, the Supreme Court outlined that there must be “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning…”. The Office does not need to go to specific, detailed and narrowly-tailored lengths (like “identify predictability of detection timing as a problem or propose randomization as a solution) to demonstrate how the prior art satisfies the claimed invention. The Office only needs to give “some articulated reasoning” to support the rejection.
Examiner provided “some articulated reasoning” taken from the cited reference as to what a person of ordinary skill would know and "why” that person would take the knowledge in the prior art and modify it accordingly (with "some rational underpinning") in a way that would read on the claimed invention. it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As such, the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2144.
In the previous rejection and below, Examiner determined that the teachings of Ferreira are reasonably related to Applicant’s technology and field of endeavor. Additionally, Examiner outlined the strongest type of rationale to modify the reference with an express recognition of an expected benefit would have been produced (“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). An additional express recognition of an expected benefit is further stated by Ferreira to improve merging of sensor data is not only necessary to refine and consolidate the measured results but also to increase the confidence in sensor results by resolving possible inconsistencies and contradictories and by providing a certain level of redundancy (see para. 0008). These teachings of Ferreira are the strongest type of rationale.
Lastly, Examiner did not take any motivation to modify the teachings from Applicant’s own specification. As such, Examiner did not use impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
The motivations outlined by the Examiner are proper to support the conclusion of Obviousness. The rejection is maintained.
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 of the first vehicle (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 randomized detection times. However, based on the teaching of varying time intervals and emitting laser pulses in a “time-stochastic manner” and “stochastic time variation” and a “stochastic scanning process” (see paras. 2275-2277), this stochastic generation of objects used by Ferreira is equivalent to being “randomized” (as the definition of “stochastic” involves chance or randomness) and are implicitly included in the teachings. 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) which would also improve merging of sensor data is not only necessary to refine and consolidate the measured results but also to increase the confidence in sensor results by resolving possible inconsistencies and contradictories and by providing a certain level of redundancy (see para. 0008).
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 stochastic as well as determined based on system needs and that time periods are flexible (see paras. 2243-2251; 4970-4977, 2642; 2275-2278). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that the stochastic 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) which would also improve merging of sensor data is not only necessary to refine and consolidate the measured results but also to increase the confidence in sensor results by resolving possible inconsistencies and contradictories and by providing a certain level of redundancy (see para. 0008).
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) which would also improve merging of sensor data is not only necessary to refine and consolidate the measured results but also to increase the confidence in sensor results by resolving possible inconsistencies and contradictories and by providing a certain level of redundancy (see para. 0008).
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. Additionally, the newly added limitation is taught by Ferreira wherein the method is configured to provide the first data from the detection system of the first vehicle to the second vehicle (see para. 2664, vehicle communicates with monitoring device, monitoring device may be second vehicle; paras. 2651-2652, 5535, 5608, 5643)
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
As previously stated, Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the rejection of the amended claims and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights