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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “a sensor unit (5010) configured to detect surrounding environment information” should be “a sensor unit (5010) configured to detect the surrounding environment information”
In claim 3, “the processor (400)” should be “the processor (400) of the RSU”
In claim 5, “the processor (400) primarily detects” should be “the processor (400) of the RSU
In claim 7, “the processor 400” should be “the processor (400) of the RSU”
In claim 10, “a synch timing.” should be “a sync timing.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a communication unit (5020)” configured to communicate information in claims 1-2
“a communication unit (200)” configured to communicate in claim 3
“synchronization signal complementation device (10)” configured to complement a signal in claims 8 and 12
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification reveals that, “A computer program for performing operations of all methods provided by the present invention may be stored in a recording medium” (See at least paragraph [000290] in the specification). Applicant further discloses that these may take the form of hardware and processors executing computer-readable instructions (See at least paragraphs [000291]-[000292] in the specification).
This is adequate structure to perform the claimed functions, so no 112 rejections are given and no further action is required by applicant with respect to this 112(f) interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of detecting surrounding environment information. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recites A system for expanding a recognition area of a vehicle on the basis of surrounding environment information, the system comprising:
a first vehicle (5000); and
a second vehicle (5500), wherein the first vehicle (5000) comprises:
a sensor unit (5010) configured to detect surrounding environment information;
a communication unit (5020) configured to communicate with the second vehicle (5500);
a memory (5030) configured to store at least one instruction; and
a processor (5040) configured to execute the at least one instruction.
The claim recites a system which performs a series of steps and therefore is directed to an apparatus, which satisfies step 1 of the Section 101 analysis. Under the two-prong inquiry, the claim is eligible at revised step 2A unless: Prong One: the claim recites a judicial exception; and Prong Two: the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception.
The above claim steps are directed to the concept of detecting surrounding environment information, which is an abstract idea that can be performed by a user mentally or manually and falls within the Mental Processes grouping. (Prong one: YES, recites an abstract idea).
Other than reciting the use of a sensor unit (5010), a communication unit (5020), a memory (5030), and a processor (5040), nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed entirely by a human. The use of one or more computing devices is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Moreover, the steps pertaining to outputting data are merely outputting the judicial exception, which is insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two: NO, does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application similar to that shown in MPEP 2106.05).
Under step 2B, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The sensor unit (5010), communication unit (5020), memory (5030), and processor (5040) are described in at least paragraphs [000290]-[000292] of applicant’s specification as being implementable by a general purpose computer. Indeed, the entire invention is described as being implementable this way in paragraphs [000290]-[000292]. Therefore these additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The recitation of generic processors/computers does not take the above limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Moreover, the implementation of the abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claims merely invoke the additional elements as tools that are being used in their ordinary capacity. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not add significantly more. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Examiner’s note to help applicant overcome the 101 rejections: applicant can overcome these 101 rejections by amending the independent claims to include the limitations of any claims not rejected under 101.
Regarding claim 2, applicant recites The system of claim 1, further comprising a roadside unit (RSU) (50), wherein the communication unit (5020) of the first vehicle (5000) receives safe driving information from the RSU (50).
However, outputting the judicial exception is insignificant extra-solution activity which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 3, applicant recites The system of claim 2, wherein the RSU (50) comprises:
a sensor unit (100) configured to detect an object within a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication range; a communication unit (200) configured to communicate with the first vehicle (5000) within the V2X communication range;
a memory (300) configured to store at least one instruction; and
a processor (400) configured to execute the at least one instruction, wherein,
when the first vehicle (5000) enters the V2X communication range, the processor (400) acquires vehicle information in accordance with a travel route and a travel speed of the first vehicle (5000), generates the safe driving information on the basis of the vehicle information and information about an object near the first vehicle (5000), and transmits the safe driving information to the first vehicle (5000).
However, a user can mentally or manually observe this kind of information. Moreover, outputting the judicial exception is insignificant extra-solution activity which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Finally, the generic computer components, similar to those described in the 101 rejection of claim 1, do not amount to more than the invention as indicated by at least paragraphs [000290]-[000292] of the specification—they merely perform generic computer functions.
Regarding claim 4, applicant recites The system of claim 3, wherein the sensor unit (100) comprises:
at least one closed-circuit television (CCTV) (110) having a first sensing area;
at least one radar sensor (120) having a second sensing area; and
at least one light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor (130) having a third sensing area.
However, these sensors may be regarded as generic computer components, similar to those described in the 101 rejection of claim 1. They do not amount to more than the invention as indicated by at least paragraphs [000290]-[000292] of the specification—they merely perform generic computer functions.
Regarding claim 5, applicant recites The system of claim 4, wherein the processor (400) primarily detects one or more first objects in the first sensing area, the second sensing area, and the third sensing area, determines a second object in the travel direction of the first vehicle (5000) among the first objects, and generates safe driving information about the travel direction and the travel speed of the first vehicle (5000) on the basis of a possibility of a collision between the first vehicle (5000) and the second object to transmit the safe driving information to the first vehicle (5000).
However, a user can mentally or manually observe this kind of information and draw these kinds of conclusions. Moreover, outputting the judicial exception is insignificant extra-solution activity which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 6, applicant recites The system of claim 3, wherein the safe driving information includes:
a warning to avoid a pedestrian collision, a warning to avoid a rear-end collision with a nearby vehicle, a warning of an emergency vehicle, and a warning of an emergency situation of a nearby vehicle in accordance with a travel direction and speed of the first vehicle (5000);
traffic information, speed control information of a school zone, and school bus operation information based on a location of the first vehicle (5000), and hazardous road section information, road surface weather information, road work zone information, and information about a warning of danger of an intersection signal violation based on the travel route of the first vehicle (5000).
However, a user can mentally or manually observe this kind of information and express any of these warnings. Moreover, outputting the judicial exception is insignificant extra-solution activity which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 7, applicant recites The system of claim 3, wherein, when information about an area that is sensible by the first vehicle (5000) is received, the processor 400 generates information about a shadow area that is not sensible by the first vehicle (5000) and transmits the information about the shadow area to the first vehicle (5000).
However, a user can mentally or manually observe this kind of information. Moreover, outputting the judicial exception is insignificant extra-solution activity which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner’s note to help applicant overcome the 101 rejections: applicant can overcome these 101 rejections by amending the independent claims to include the limitations of any claims not rejected under 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 20200349843 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses A system (See at least Fig. 2 in Liu: Liu discloses that an explanatory diagram illustrating an outline of the communication system [See at least Liu, 0053]) for expanding a recognition area of a vehicle on the basis of surrounding environment information (See at least Fig. 2 in Liu: Liu discloses that when there is some vehicle that may collide with the pedestrian, the roadside device 5 transmits a message including alarm information by ITS communication [See at least Liu, 0056]. Liu further discloses The in-vehicle terminal 3 of a vehicle A that has received this message alerts the driver of the vehicle A [See at least Liu, 0056]), the system comprising:
a first vehicle (5000) (See at least Fig. 2 in Liu: Liu discloses that There are vehicles A to C [See at least Liu, 0057]); and
a second vehicle (5500) (See at least Fig. 2 in Liu: Liu discloses that There are vehicles A to C [See at least Liu, 0057]),
wherein the first vehicle (5000) comprises (See at least Fig. 4 in Liu: Liu discloses The in-vehicle terminal 3 [See at least Liu, 0075]):
a sensor unit (5010) configured to detect surrounding environment information (See at least Fig. 4 in Liu: Liu discloses that The positioning system 31 measures the position of the own in-vehicle terminal by using a satellite positioning system such as GPS, QZSS, etc. to acquire the position information (longitude and latitude) of the own in-vehicle terminal [See at least Liu, 0076]. Liu further discloses that The positioning system 31 may acquire the position information of the own in-vehicle terminal by using the positioning function of the car navigation device 4 [See at least Liu, 0076]);
a communication unit (5020) configured to communicate with the second vehicle (5500) (See at least Fig. 9 in Liu: Liu discloses that the message controller 41 generates a message including the vehicle information (position information of the own vehicle, etc.) and transmits the message from the ITS communication device 32 (ST302) [See at least Liu, 0124]. Liu further discloses that this message may be transmitted to the pedestrian terminals 1 by ITS communication (pedestrian-to-vehicle communication) as well as to other in-vehicle terminals 3 by ITS communication (vehicle-to-vehicle communication), and the terminals receiving the message may respectively perform the collision determination based on the position information included in the message and the position information of the own terminal [See at least Liu, 0124]);
a memory (5030) configured to store at least one instruction (See at least Fig. 4 in Liu: Liu discloses that The storage 35 stores map information, programs executed by a processor constituting the controller 34, and other information [See at least Liu, 0079]); and
a processor (5040) configured to execute the at least one instruction (See at least Fig. 4 in Liu: Liu discloses that The controller 34 is comprised primarily of a processor, and each functional unit of the controller 34 is implemented by causing the processor to execute a program stored in the storage 35 [See at least Liu, 0080]).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising a roadside unit (RSU) (50) (See at least Fig. 2 in Liu: Liu discloses roadside device 5 [See at least Liu, 0054]),
wherein the communication unit (5020) of the first vehicle (5000) receives safe driving information (See at least Fig. 8 in Liu: Liu discloses that a message including alarm information indicating that the pedestrian(s) in a risky state may collide with the vehicle(s) is generated, and the message is transmitted, with the terminal ID(s) of the in-vehicle terminal(s) 3 of the vehicle(s) that may collide with the pedestrian(s) being included in the message (ST208) [See at least Liu, 0121]) from the RSU (50) (See at least Fig. 8 in Liu: Liu discloses a flowchart showing the operation procedure of the roadside device 5 [See at least Liu, 0117]).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses The system of claim 2, wherein the RSU (50) comprises:
a sensor unit (100) configured to detect an object (See at least Fig. 5 in Liu: Liu discloses that The roadside device 5 includes a radar 51 (object detector), and the radar 51 is configured to detect pedestrians and vehicles (moving objects) on roads [See at least Liu, 0054]) within a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication range (See at least Fig. 8 in Liu: Liu discloses that a message including alarm information indicating that the pedestrian(s) in a risky state may collide with the vehicle(s) is generated, and the message is transmitted, with the terminal ID(s) of the in-vehicle terminal(s) 3 of the vehicle(s) that may collide with the pedestrian(s) being included in the message (ST208) [See at least Liu, 0121]. Also see at least Fig. 2 in Liu: It will be appreciated that the pedestrian and the vehicles, which all communicate with the roadside device 5, are all located in a V2X communication range and are detected within that range);
a communication unit (200) configured to communicate with the first vehicle (5000) within the V2X communication range (See at least Fig. 5 in Liu: Liu discloses that The ITS communication device 52 transmits and receives messages to and from the in-vehicle terminals 3 by ITS communication (roadside-to-vehicle communication) [See at least Liu, 0089]);
a memory (300) configured to store at least one instruction (See at least Fig. 5 in Liu: Liu discloses that The storage 54 stores map information, position information of the own roadside device, programs executed by a processor constituting the controller [See at least Liu, 0090]); and
a processor (400) configured to execute the at least one instruction (See at least Fig. 5 in Liu: Liu discloses that The controller 53 is comprised primarily of a processor, and each functional unit of the controller 53 is implemented by causing the processor to execute a program stored in the storage 54 [See at least Liu, 0092]),
wherein, when the first vehicle (5000) enters the V2X communication range (Liu discloses V2X communication between the roadside device 5 and the vehicles 3 in at least [Liu, 0056 and 0124], among other locations. It will be appreciated that the vehicles are in the V2X communication range when this communication is occurring), the processor (400) acquires vehicle information in accordance with a travel route (See at least Fig. 9 in Liu: Liu discloses that the message controller 41 generates a message including the vehicle information (position information of the own vehicle, etc.) and transmits the message from the ITS communication device 32 (ST302) [See at least Liu, 0124]. The position information may be regarded as “in accordance” with a travel route of the vehicle. Fig. 9(A) in Liu further illustrates that the recipient of the message at ST302 is the roadside device) and a travel speed of the first vehicle (5000) (Liu discloses that The roadside device 5 receives a message from each in-vehicle terminal 3 [See at least Liu, 0056]. Liu further discloses that When it is determined that one or more vehicles are present around some pedestrian based on the position information of the pedestrian and the vehicles as well as the detection result of the radar 51, the roadside device 5 performs collision determination as to whether there is a possibility that some vehicle may collide with the pedestrian based on the information such as the position, traveling direction, and speed of each vehicle [See at least Liu, 0056]. It will therefore be appreciated that, at the very least, the information received from the in-vehicle terminals is such that it is in “accordance with” a speed of a vehicle), generates the safe driving information on the basis of the vehicle information and information about an object near the first vehicle (5000) (See at least Fig. 8 in Liu: Liu discloses that in a case where there is a possibility that some pedestrian in a risky state may collide with some vehicle (Yes in ST206), the vehicle(s) with which each such pedestrian may collide is/are determined (ST207) [See at least Liu, 0121]. Liu further discloses that Then, a message including alarm information indicating that the pedestrian(s) in a risky state may collide with the vehicle(s) is generated, and the message is transmitted, with the terminal ID(s) of the in-vehicle terminal(s) 3 of the vehicle(s) that may collide with the pedestrian(s) being included in the message (ST208) [See at least Liu, 0121]. The “message including alarm information indicating that the pedestrian(s) in a risky state may collide with the vehicle(s)” may be regarded as applicant’s “safe driving information”, since that message is ultimately used to promote safe operation of the vehicles), and transmits the safe driving information to the first vehicle (5000) (See at least Fig. 8 in Liu: Liu discloses that a message including alarm information indicating that the pedestrian(s) in a risky state may collide with the vehicle(s) is generated, and the message is transmitted, with the terminal ID(s) of the in-vehicle terminal(s) 3 of the vehicle(s) that may collide with the pedestrian(s) being included in the message (ST208) [See at least Liu, 0121]).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20200349843 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20170086081 A1) in further view of Xu et al. (US 20250155574 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu, Kim, and Xu, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses The system of claim 3, wherein the sensor unit (100) comprises:
at least one radar sensor (120) (See at least Fig. 5 in Liu: Liu discloses that The roadside device 5 includes a radar 51 (object detector), and the radar 51 is configured to detect pedestrians and vehicles (moving objects) on roads [See at least Liu, 0054]) having a second sensing area (See at least Fig. 2 in Liu: Liu discloses a detection area of the radar 51 [See at least Liu, 0129]).
However, Liu does not explicitly teach the system wherein the sensor unit further comprises at least one closed-circuit television (CCTV) (110) having a first sensing area.
However, Kim does teach a system wherein the sensor unit further comprises at least one closed-circuit television (CCTV) (110) having a first sensing area (Kim teaches that in the case of that it is identified that the pedestrian exists by the additional sensors or the image devices (e.g., CCTV, camera, and the like), the RSU may transmit the identified pedestrian-related information (e.g., user information) to the OBU using resources for the direct communications in the broadcast manner [See at least Kim, 0140]. If the CCTV senses something, it will be appreciated that it must have a sensing area). Both Kim and Liu teach methods for observing scenes containing vehicles using roadside systems. However, only Kim explicitly teaches where the roadside system may further comprise a CCTV.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RSUs of Liu to also include CCTV systems, as in Kim. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that this is a common type of sensor present in RSUs.
However, Liu does not explicitly teach the system wherein the sensor unit further comprises at least one light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor (130) having a third sensing area.
However, Xu does teach a system wherein the sensor unit further comprises at least one light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor (130) having a third sensing area (Xu teaches autonomous vehicles traveling into the area covered by such a roadside LiDAR sensor system [See at least Xu, 0051]). Both Xu and Liu teach methods for observing scenes containing vehicles using roadside systems. However, only Xu explicitly teaches where the roadside system may further comprise a lidar sensor.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RSUs of Liu to also include lidar systems, as in Xu. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that this is a common type of sensor present in RSUs.
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Kim in further view of Xu teaches The system of claim 4, wherein the processor (400) primarily detects one or more first objects in the first sensing area (Kim teaches that in the case of that it is identified that the pedestrian exists by the additional sensors or the image devices (e.g., CCTV, camera, and the like), the RSU may transmit the identified pedestrian-related information (e.g., user information) to the OBU using resources for the direct communications in the broadcast manner [See at least Kim, 0140]. If the CCTV senses something, it will be appreciated that it must have a sensing area), the second sensing area (See at least Fig. 5 in Liu: Liu discloses that The roadside device 5 includes a radar 51 (object detector), and the radar 51 is configured to detect pedestrians and vehicles (moving objects) on roads [See at least Liu, 0054]), and the third sensing area (Xu teaches that operation permits autonomous vehicles traveling into the area covered by such a roadside LiDAR sensor system to be aware of potential upcoming collision risks and to be aware of the movement status of other road users while still being at a distance away from the area [See at least Xu, 0051]), determines a second object in the travel direction of the first vehicle (5000) among the first objects (See at least Fig. 8 in Liu: Liu discloses that a message including alarm information indicating that the pedestrian(s) in a risky state may collide with the vehicle(s) is generated, and the message is transmitted, with the terminal ID(s) of the in-vehicle terminal(s) 3 of the vehicle(s) that may collide with the pedestrian(s) being included in the message (ST208) [See at least Liu, 0121]. Also see at least Fig. 2 in Liu: Liu discloses that Each pedestrian terminal 1 has a function of detecting the pedestrian' s risky action such as crossing the road or running into the road, and if the pedestrian takes a risky action, the pedestrian terminal 1 transmits, by ITS communication, a message including state information indicating that the pedestrian is in a risky state [See at least Liu, 0055]. It will be appreciated that when the pedestrian of Fig. 2 crosses the street, the pedestrian is in a travel direction of one of the vehicles), and generates safe driving information about the travel direction and the travel speed of the first vehicle (5000) on the basis of a possibility of a collision between the first vehicle (5000) and the second object (See at least Fig. 8 in Liu: Liu discloses that in a case where there is a possibility that some pedestrian in a risky state may collide with some vehicle (Yes in ST206), the vehicle(s) with which each such pedestrian may collide is/are determined (ST207) [See at least Liu, 0121]. Liu further discloses that Then, a message including alarm information indicating that the pedestrian(s) in a risky state may collide with the vehicle(s) is generated, and the message is transmitted, with the terminal ID(s) of the in-vehicle terminal(s) 3 of the vehicle(s) that may collide with the pedestrian(s) being included in the message (ST208) [See at least Liu, 0121]. The “message including alarm information indicating that the pedestrian(s) in a risky state may collide with the vehicle(s)” may be regarded as applicant’s “safe driving information”, since that message is ultimately used to promote safe operation of the vehicles) to transmit the safe driving information to the first vehicle (5000) (See at least Fig. 8 in Liu: Liu discloses that a message including alarm information indicating that the pedestrian(s) in a risky state may collide with the vehicle(s) is generated, and the message is transmitted, with the terminal ID(s) of the in-vehicle terminal(s) 3 of the vehicle(s) that may collide with the pedestrian(s) being included in the message (ST208) [See at least Liu, 0121]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20200349843 A1) in view of Jung (US 20210188227 A1) in further view of Park et al. (US 20230055693 A1) in further view of Baldwin et al. (US 20180012492 A1) in further view of Ho et al. (US 20180089997 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu, Jung, Park, Baldwin, and Ho, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Kim in further view of Xu teaches The system of claim 3, wherein the safe driving information includes:
a warning to avoid a pedestrian collision (Liu discloses that the driver is alerted when there is a risk that the own vehicle may collide with some pedestrian, but in a case where the vehicle has an automatic driving function, the vehicle may be controlled to avoid the collision [See at least Liu, 0085]); and
traffic information (Liu discloses that the driver is alerted when there is a risk that the own vehicle may collide with some pedestrian, but in a case where the vehicle has an automatic driving function, the vehicle may be controlled to avoid the collision [See at least Liu, 0085]).
However, Liu does not explicitly teach where the system’s safe driving information further includes a warning to avoid a rear-end collision with a nearby vehicle, and a warning of an emergency situation of a nearby vehicle in accordance with a travel direction and speed of the first vehicle (5000);
hazardous road section information, road surface weather information.
However, Jung does teach where the system’s safe driving information further includes a warning to avoid a rear-end collision with a nearby vehicle (See at least Fig. 4 in Jung: Jung teaches that the vehicle may detect the front vehicle and communicate with the V2X communication base station 3 [See at least Jung, 0092]. Jung further teaches that the V2X communication base station 3 may provide various information for safe driving of the vehicle [See at least Jung, 0094]. Jung further teaches that the V2X communication base station 3 provides a maintenance distance with the front vehicle [See at least Jung, 0095]), and a warning of an emergency situation of a nearby vehicle in accordance with a travel direction and speed of the first vehicle (5000) (See at least Fig. 4 in Jung: Jung teaches that the V2X communication base station 3 may provide a predetermined reference time for emergency braking (eg, reference TTC or reference DTC) or a predetermined reference time for emergency steering [See at least Jung, 0096]);
hazardous road section information (See at least Fig. 4 in Jung: Jung teaches that The V2X communication base station 3 may provide information related to driving of the vehicle according to weather information and local weather information [See at least Jung, 0095]. Jung further teaches that, For example, the V2X communication base station 3 provides a speed limit of the road corrected according to local weather information and weather information, or a maintenance distance with the front vehicle, or a critical acceleration, or a critical deceleration [See at least Jung, 0095]), road surface weather information (See at least Fig. 4 in Jung: Jung teaches that the V2X communication base station 3 may determine the location information received from the vehicle and transmit the weather information of the area where the vehicle is located and the friction coefficient information of the road according to the weather information to the vehicle [See at least Jung, 0094]). Both Jung and Liu teach methods of receiving information from an RSU at a vehicle to promote safe driving of the vehicle. However, only Jung explicitly teaches where the information received may include rear-end collision avoidance information, emergency information pertaining to a nearby vehicle based on travel direction and speed of the receiving vehicle, hazardous road information, and road surface weather information.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RSU-to-vehicle communication method of Liu so that the vehicle of Liu also receives rear-end collision avoidance information, emergency information pertaining to a nearby vehicle based on travel direction and speed of the receiving vehicle, hazardous road information, and road surface weather information, as in Jung. Doing so promotes safe driving of the vehicle.
However, Liu does not explicitly teach where the system’s safe driving information further includes a warning of an emergency vehicle and road work zone information.
However, Park does teach where the system’s safe driving information further includes a warning of an emergency vehicle (See at least Fig. 7 in Park: Park teaches that The recognition unit 210 acquires information on the traffic situation (a signal, traffic congestion, a construction work, an accident, firefighting, an ambulance traveling, or the like) from the nearest infrastructure on the basis of the current position of the autonomous vehicle [See at least Park, 0133]) and road work zone information (See at least Fig. 7 in Park: Park teaches that The recognition unit 210 acquires information on the traffic situation (a signal, traffic congestion, a construction work, an accident, firefighting, an ambulance traveling, or the like) from the nearest infrastructure on the basis of the current position of the autonomous vehicle [See at least Park, 0133]. Park further teaches that the construction is road construction [See at least Park, 0155]). Both Park and Liu teach methods of receiving information from an RSU at a vehicle to promote safe driving of the vehicle. However, only Park explicitly teaches where the information received may include emergency vehicle warning information and road work information.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RSU-to-vehicle communication method of Liu so that the vehicle of Liu also receives emergency vehicle warning information and road work information, as in Park. Doing so promotes safe driving of the vehicle.
However, Liu does not explicitly teach where the system’s safe driving information further includes speed control information of a school zone, and school bus operation information based on a location of the first vehicle (5000).
However, Baldwin does teach where the system’s safe driving information further includes speed control information of a school zone (Baldwin teaches that the roadside infrastructure is a school crossing warning device and data contained in the message a device location and a warning state [See at least Baldwin, 0035]. Baldwin further teaches that The vehicle system is a braking system [See at least Baldwin, 0035]. Baldwin further teaches that The step of providing instructions includes the sub-steps of: determining vehicle speed, determining a lateral location of the device location within a roadway, determining a distance between the vehicle and the device location, and providing, by the computer system, instructions to the braking system to apply vehicle brakes based on a vehicle speed, the lateral location, the warning state, and the distance between the vehicle and the device location [See at least Baldwin, 0035-0039]), and school bus operation information based on a location of the first vehicle (5000) (Baldwin teaches that the other vehicle is a school bus and data contained in the message includes school bus location and stop signal status [See at least Baldwin, 0054]. Baldwin further teaches that The vehicle system is a braking system [See at least Baldwin, 0054]. Baldwin further teaches that The step of providing instructions includes the sub-steps of: determining a vehicle speed, determining the stop signal status, determining a distance between the vehicle and the school bus location, and providing, by the computer system, instructions to the braking system to apply vehicle brakes based on the vehicle speed, the stop signal status, and the distance between the vehicle and the school bus location [See at least Baldwin, 0054-0058]. Note that the claim is written broadly enough that the RSU can be a bus if needed). Both Baldwin and Liu teach methods of receiving information from an RSU at a vehicle to promote safe driving of the vehicle. However, only Baldwin explicitly teaches where the information received may include speed control information pertaining to a school zone and/or school bus operation information based on a location of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RSU-to-vehicle communication method of Liu so that the vehicle of Liu also receives speed control information pertaining to a school zone and/or school bus operation information based on a location of the vehicle, as in Baldwin. Doing so promotes safe driving of the vehicle.
However, Liu does not explicitly teach where the system’s safe driving information further includes information about a warning of danger of an intersection signal violation based on the travel route of the first vehicle (5000).
However, Ho does teach where the system’s safe driving information further includes information about a warning of danger of an intersection signal violation based on the travel route of the first vehicle (5000) (See at least Fig. 1 in Ho: Ho teaches that the event determining module 208 of the roadside unit 104 determines whether event information is generated for at least one object according to received object information of the at least one object and signal information [See at least Ho, 0033]. Ho further teaches that For example, if a vehicle runs a red light, the roadside unit 104 receives object information of at least one object and signal information, and the event determining module 208 further obtains acceleration of the object according to the object information and correspondingly in combination with the signal information determines whether to generate “Vehicle from Left” or “Vehicle from Right” event information [See at least Ho, 0033]. Ho further teaches that The generated event information is transmitted [See at least Ho, 0033]. Ho further teaches that for a vehicle or object having an OBU that includes an event determining module functionally same as that of the roadside unit 104, the OBU may receive object information of every object and/or signal information transmitted from the roadside unit 104, and according to different notifying applications and object information of at least one object and/or the signal information, the event determining module of the OBU determines based on an algorithm whether event information is generated [See at least Ho, 0035]. Ho further teaches that The OBU displays the event information, and may further issue a warning message [See at least Ho, 0035]). Both Ho and Liu teach methods of receiving information from an RSU at a vehicle to promote safe driving of the vehicle. However, only Ho explicitly teaches where the information received may include warning information about a vehicle violating an intersection signal.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RSU-to-vehicle communication method of Liu so that the vehicle of Liu also receives warning information about a vehicle violating an intersection signal, as in Ho. Doing so promotes safe driving of the vehicle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20200349843 A1) in view of Fuke (US 20240317141 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fuke.
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses The system of claim 3.
However, Liu does not disclose the system wherein, when information about an area that is sensible by the first vehicle (5000) is received, the processor 400 generates information about a shadow area that is not sensible by the first vehicle (5000) and transmits the information about the shadow area to the first vehicle (5000).
However, Fuke does teach a system wherein, when information about an area that is sensible by the first vehicle (5000) is received (See at least Fig. 1 in Fuke: Fuke teaches that The controller 120, upon obtaining the distance measurement information and location information, uses the blind spot estimation unit 122a to estimate an area where a blind spot occurs [See at least Fuke, 0049]. Fuke further teaches that The flight computational unit 122b calculates as the flight location a location where the flying object camera 132 can capture the blind spot area estimated by the blind spot estimation unit 122a [See at least Fuke, 0049]. Fuke further teaches that The blind spot area is an area on a road which is in the area observable by the vehicle camera 112 but which cannot be observed because the view is obstructed by an object [See at least Fuke, 0049]. Also see at least Fig. 2 in Fuke: Fuke teaches that The controller communication unit 121 transmits information on the flight location calculated by the flight computational unit 122b to the flying object communication unit 131 (step S200) [See at least Fuke, 0049]), the processor 400 generates information about a shadow area that is not sensible by the first vehicle (5000) (See at least Fig. 2 in Fuke: Fuke teaches that After being moved to an aerial location indicated by the flight location information, the flying object camera 132 captures an image of the blind spot area estimated by the blind spot estimation unit 122a [See at least Fuke, 0050]) and transmits the information about the shadow area to the first vehicle (5000) (See at least Fig. 2 in Fuke: Fuke teaches that The captured image is transmitted to the controller communication unit 121 (step S300) [See at least Fuke, 0050]). Both Fuke and Liu teach methods for observing scenes containing vehicles using roadside systems. However, only Fuke explicitly teaches where the roadside system may further image an area that the vehicle itself cannot image upon learning that the vehicle is unable to image that area, and transmit the image to the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roadside system of Liu to also image an area that the vehicle itself cannot image upon learning that the vehicle is unable to image that area, and transmit the image to the vehicle, as in Fuke. Doing so improves safety by making the vehicle more aware of its surroundings.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20200349843 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20200260394 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses The system of claim 1.
However, Liu does not explicitly teach the system further comprising a synchronization signal complementation device (10),
wherein the synchronization signal complementation device (10) complements a synchronization signal between roadside units (RSUs) through the operations of:
receiving a 1st sync signal from a nearby RSU;
determining a sync timing from the 1st sync signal; and
generating a 1-1 sync signal on the basis of the sync timing and transmitting the 1- 1 sync signal.
However, Wang does teach a system further comprising a synchronization signal complementation device (10) (Wang teaches a Road Side Synchronization Device (RSDS) [See at least Wang, 0006]),
wherein the synchronization signal complementation device (10) complements a synchronization signal between roadside units (RSUs) through the operations of (See at least Fig. 9 in Wang: Wang teaches a flowchart 900 of a method of wireless communication [See at least Wang, 0057]. Wang further teaches that The method may be performed by an RSDS or a component of an RSDS, e.g., by an RSU or other such device capable of communicating using sidelink, or V2X based communication [See at least Wang, 0057]. Wang further teaches that The method improves synchronization, e.g., for V2X communication [See at least Wang, 0057]):
receiving a 1st sync signal from a nearby RSU (See at least Fig. 9 in Wang: Wang teaches that At 902, the RSDS receives, from a first neighbor device, a first SLSS [See at least Wang, 0058]);
determining a sync timing from the 1st sync signal (See at least Fig. 9 in Wang: Wang teaches that As illustrated at 904, the RSDS may remove a propagation delay from the first SLSS to synchronize the timing and the frequency with the first neighbor device [See at least Wang, 0059]. Wang further teaches that At 906, the RSDS synchronizes a timing and a frequency with the first neighbor device [See at least Wang, 0060]); and
generating a 1-1 sync signal on the basis of the sync timing and transmitting the 1- 1 sync signal (See at least Fig. 9 in Wang: Wang teaches that At 910, the RSDS transmits a second SLSS, wherein the second SLSS is based on a synchronized timing and a synchronized frequency with the first neighbor device [See at least Wang, 0061]). Both Wang and Liu teach methods for observing scenes containing vehicles using roadside systems. However, only Xu explicitly teaches where the RSUs in the roadside system may synchronize with each other using SLSS.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RSUs of Liu to also synchronize with each other using SLSS, as in Wang. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that this improves safety by improving the accuracy of time measurements in the network.
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Wang teaches The system of claim 8, wherein the 1st sync signal is a sidelink synchronization signal (SLSS) that is generated using a first RSU as a synchronization reference source (See at least Fig. 9 in Wang: Wang teaches that At 902, the RSDS receives, from a first neighbor device, a first SLSS [See at least Wang, 0058]), and the 1-1 sync signal is an SLSS that is generated using the first RSU as a synchronization reference source (See at least Fig. 9 in Wang: Wang teaches that At 910, the RSDS transmits a second SLSS, wherein the second SLSS is based on a synchronized timing and a synchronized frequency with the first neighbor device [See at least Wang, 0061]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20200349843 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20200260394 A1) in further view of Tandalam et al. (US 20250097878 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tandalam.
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Wang teaches The system of claim 8, wherein the synchronization signal complementation device (10) complements the synchronization signal between the RSUs further through the operations of:
detecting a sync signal within a communication coverage area (See at least Fig. 9 in Wang: Wang teaches that At 902, the RSDS receives, from a first neighbor device, a first SLSS [See at least Wang, 0058]) at predetermined periods (See at least Fig. 4 in Wang: Wang teaches that Resources for the SLSS 404 may be scheduled or set aside in a periodic manner, e.g., using a spacing 406 between resources 404 for SLSS 402 transmission/reception [See at least Wang, 0048]).
However, Liu in view of Wang does not explicitly teach the system wherein the operations further comprise:
when different sync signals are simultaneously detected within the communication coverage area, determining a priority order of the different sync signals; and
generating a synchronization signal of one of the sync signals which is determined in accordance with the priority order and transmitting the synchronization signal.
However, Tandalam does teach a system wherein the operations further comprise:
when different sync signals are simultaneously detected within the communication coverage area (See at least Fig. 14 in Tandalam: Tandalam teaches that The arrows pointing left-to-right represent target propagation of SLSSs, and the arrows pointing right-to-left represent leakage (e.g., undesirable reception of SLSSs) from adjacent SLSS sources [See at least Tandalam, 0148]. Tandalam further teaches that SLSS ID 0 may be exclusive, while SLSS IDs 168 or 169 may be used by all other SLSS transmission devices in a given system [See at least Tandalam, 0073]. Tandalam further teaches that, based on these SLSS IDs, all RSUs after the fourth hop (e.g., RSU D) have the same synchronization source priority [See at least Tandalam, 0074]), determining a priority order of the different sync signals (See at least Fig. 14 in Tandalam: Tandalam teaches that SLSS ID 0 may be exclusive, while SLSS IDs 168 or 169 may be used by all other SLSS transmission devices in a given system [See at least Tandalam, 0073]. Tandalam further teaches that, based on these SLSS IDs, all RSUs after the fourth hop (e.g., RSU D) have the same synchronization source priority [See at least Tandalam, 0074]. Note from Fig. 14 that, despite that the backpropagation/leakage (i.e., the right-to-left arrows), the SLSS IDs output by RSUs A and B (i.e., the left-to-right arrows coming out of RSUs A and B) are still 0 rather than 168. It will therefore be appreciated that SLSS ID 0 has higher priority than SLSS ID 168); and
generating a synchronization signal of one of the sync signals which is determined in accordance with the priority order and transmitting the synchronization signal (See at least Fig. 14 in Tandalam: Tandalam teaches that SLSS ID 0 may be exclusive, while SLSS IDs 168 or 169 may be used by all other SLSS transmission devices in a given system [See at least Tandalam, 0073]. Tandalam further teaches that, based on these SLSS IDs, all RSUs after the fourth hop (e.g., RSU D) have the same synchronization source priority [See at least Tandalam, 0074]. Note from Fig. 14 that, despite that the backpropagation/leakage (i.e., the right-to-left arrows), the SLSS IDs output by RSUs A and B (i.e., the left-to-right arrows coming out of RSUs A and B) are still 0 rather than 168. It will therefore be appreciated that SLSS ID 0 has higher priority than SLSS ID 168). Both Tandalam and Liu in view of Wang teach methods for transmitting SLSS signals between RSUs. However, only Tandalam explicitly teaches where, when multiple signals are received by a single RSU, the RSU prioritizes which one of those received signals it will transmit to other RSUs.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RSU SLSS ID transmission system of each RSU of Liu in view of Wang so that, when multiple signals are received by a single RSU, the RSU prioritizes which one of those received signals it will transmit to other RSUs, as in Tandalam. Doing so improves accuracy of the synchronization of the data of each RSU, which ultimately improves safety and reliability of the communication system as a whole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record is Liu et al. (US 20200349843 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20200260394 A1) in further view of Peiris (US 20200154382 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu, Wang, and Peiris, respectively. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Wang teaches The system of claim 8.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the system wherein the determining of the sync timing comprises decoding primary sidelink synchronization signals (PSSSs) included in the 1st sync signal through a correlator and decoding secondary sidelink synchronization signals (SSSSs) through a matched filter to determine a synch timing.
Liu and Wang are silent as to the existence of PSSSs and SSSSs, let alone processing of them through a correlator and a matched filter, respectively, to determine a sync timing.
Peiris does teach the existence of a PSSS and a SSSS (See at least Fig. 2 in Peiris and [Peiris, 0038-0046]). However, Peiris does not teach or suggests processing of them through a correlator and a matched filter, respectively, to determine a sync timing. In fact, Peiris is not even in the field of endeavor of RSU communications, and is silent as to that application.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 10 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 11, this claim also contains allowable subject matter at least by virtue of its dependence from claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668