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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner notes that Foreign Patent Document #8, DE10201307962, does not include a concise explanation of the relevance or a translation of the abstract in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to process and product, respectively, for infrastructure-based assistance. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Analogous claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 20 as discussed here. Claim 20 recites:
A system for an infrastructure-based assistance of a motor vehicle during a journey through an infrastructure, including:
at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the infrastructure, the at least one surroundings sensor detecting a surroundings of the motor vehicle and outputting a plurality of surroundings signals based on the detection and representing the surroundings of the motor vehicle; and
an apparatus performing the steps of:
determining whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure;
wherein, when the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, the method includes the following steps:
determining an infrastructure assistance data for the journey of the motor vehicle through the infrastructure,
generating a periodic message including the infrastructure assistance data, and
transmitting the periodic message including the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle;
wherein, when the motor vehicle does not require infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, the method includes the following steps:
generating a periodic message without an infrastructure assistance data, and
transmitting the periodic message without the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the steps of determining whether the vehicle requires assistance, determining an infrastructure assistance data, generating a message, and generating a message in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for an infrastructure-based assistance of a motor vehicle during a journey through an infrastructure, including:
at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the infrastructure, the at least one surroundings sensor detecting a surroundings of the motor vehicle and outputting a plurality of surroundings signals based on the detection and representing the surroundings of the motor vehicle; and
an apparatus performing the steps of:
determining whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure;
wherein, when the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, the method includes the following steps:
determining an infrastructure assistance data for the journey of the motor vehicle through the infrastructure,
generating a periodic message including the infrastructure assistance data, and
transmitting the periodic message including the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle;
wherein, when the motor vehicle does not require infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, the method includes the following steps:
generating a periodic message without an infrastructure assistance data, and
transmitting the periodic message without the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the steps of detecting a surroundings and outputting a plurality of surroundings signals based on the detection and representing the surroundings of the motor vehicle are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the steps of transmitting the periodic messages are also recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 20 further recite at least one surroundings sensor and an apparatus. These limitations merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The sensor(s) and apparatus are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an apparatus to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of detecting information and outputting the detected information are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the apparatus is anything other than a conventional computer, or that the surroundings sensor(s) are anything other than conventional sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 20.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-2, 6-8, 10-17, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210001882 A1, PCT filed August 19th, 2018, hereinafter “Mortazavi”, in view of US 20210144667 A1, filed November 8th, 2019, hereinafter “Lepp”.
Regarding claim 1, Mortazavi teaches A method for an infrastructure-based assistance of a motor vehicle during a journey through an infrastructure. See at least [0093] and figure 6.
comprising: determining whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure. See at least [0096], [0100], and figure 6, steps 6120 and 6140, comprising the steps of determining, by an external resource, that the vehicle requires infrastructure data as the vehicle travels through an area with infrastructure. See at least [0063]-[0067] and figure 3.
wherein, when the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, the method includes the following steps: determining an infrastructure assistance data for the journey of the motor vehicle through the infrastructure. See at least [0101] and figure 6, step 6150, wherein, based on the vehicle requiring infrastructure data, the external resource determines infrastructure data relevant to the vehicle.
generating a periodic message including the infrastructure assistance data. See at least [0102], [0106], and figure 6, step 6150, wherein the determined infrastructure data is continuously transmitted to the vehicle until the vehicle no longer requires the data. See at least [0053], wherein communications between the vehicle and the external resource comprise generated messages transmitted periodically.
and transmitting the periodic message including the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle. See at least [0103] and figure 6, step 6160, wherein the vehicle receives the transmitted infrastructure data from the external resource.
wherein, when the motor vehicle does not require infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, the method includes the following steps. See at least [0106], wherein, when the vehicle bypasses the occlusion scenario and no longer needs infrastructure data, the method 6000 continues until the vehicle reaches its destination or powers off. The steps 6100 and 6130 are continuously repeated when the vehicle does not require infrastructure data but it still traveling.
Mortazavi remains silent on generating a periodic message without an infrastructure assistance data, and transmitting the periodic message without the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle.
Lepp teaches generating a periodic message without an infrastructure assistance data, and transmitting the periodic message without the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle. See at least [0108]-[0114] and figure 6, wherein a periodic message A is generated and transmitted. If another random message is generated, that message is aggregated with periodic message A and transmitted, but if it is not, then only periodic message A is generated and transmitted. See at least [0024], and [0061]-[0062], wherein the periodic and random messages are generated by an RSU. See at least [0076], [0086], and figure 4, wherein the messages include infrastructure assistance data such as map data and signal phase and timing data.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mortazavi with Lepp’s technique of generating and transmitting a periodic message without an infrastructure assistance data. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables roadside units to efficiently coordinate transmitting multiple messages at a time, as recognized by Lepp (see at least [0022]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches receiving a plurality of surroundings signals representing a surroundings of the motor vehicle, the infrastructure assistance data is determined based on the surroundings signals. See at least [0097], [0101], and figure 6, steps 6130 and 6150, wherein the external resource receives infrastructure data from a plurality of infrastructure sensors disposed in the environment. The infrastructure assistance data is selected from the received infrastructure data to obtain sensor data representing the surroundings of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches carrying out a free space detection based on the surroundings signals to determine a free-space-detection result, which indicates an occupancy status - which is relevant based on the journey of the motor vehicle through the infrastructure - of at least one surface in the surroundings of the motor vehicle, the occupancy status indicates one of the following states: free, occupied, or unknown. See at least [0085], wherein the infrastructure sensors communicate an occupancy signal indicating whether an area is occupied or vacant. See at least [0042]-[0043], [0063], and figure 3, wherein the vehicle includes sensors that provide surroundings signals, and the vehicle’s sensors identify areas of the vehicle’s surroundings with an occluded, or unknown, occupancy status on the vehicle’s journey through the infrastructure.
wherein, on the basis of the occupancy status, it is determined whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure. See at least [0095] and figure 6, step 6110, wherein, based on the existence of occluded areas with unknown occupancy status, it is determined that the vehicle requires infrastructure assistance data.
and when the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, determining the infrastructure assistance data includes selecting a plurality of areas that are either free or occupied and/or have an unknown occupancy status, in order to determine a reduced free-space-detection result. See at least [0101] and figure 6, step 6150, wherein, upon determining that the vehicle requires infrastructure assistance data, a plurality of infrastructure sensors with corresponding areas are selected corresponding to an occlusion scenario (unknown occupancy status) in order to determine the relevant reduced infrastructure data.
which indicates only free surfaces or occupied surfaces and/or surfaces having an unknown occupancy status, such that the infrastructure assistance data include the reduced free-space-detection result. See at least [0102]-[0103], wherein the selected relevant infrastructure sensors are used to obtain the infrastructure assistance data, such that the infrastructure assistance data includes only occupancy data determined to be relevant to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches determining a relevance, which depends on the occupancy status, of the at least one surface with regard to a relevance for the journey of the motor vehicle through the infrastructure, selecting the areas is carried out based on the determined relevance. See at least [0091]-[0092], wherein the selected areas are selected based on a determined relevance of an area’s associated infrastructure sensor to the occluded areas and the current path of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches wherein an information content of information represented by the surroundings signals is reduced, such that the infrastructure assistance data include a reduced information content. See at least [0078], wherein, by sending only the infrastructure data relevant to the vehicle’s request, the network bandwidth consumed during the communication session is reduced.
Regarding claim 10, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mortazavi remains silent on wherein the infrastructure assistance data are determined depending on a transmission capacity, which indicates a capacity with regard to a transmission of the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle, and/or on a processing capacity, which indicates a capacity with respect to determining the infrastructure assistance data.
Lepp teaches wherein the infrastructure assistance data are determined depending on a transmission capacity, which indicates a capacity with regard to a transmission of the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle, and/or on a processing capacity, which indicates a capacity with respect to determining the infrastructure assistance data. See at least [0106], [0112]-[0114], and figure 6, steps 614-616, wherein the random message (infrastructure assistance data) is determined based on a transmission capacity, which indicates a maximum size of a data frame that can be transmitted.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mortazavi with Lepp’s technique of determining infrastructure data depending on a transmission capacity, indicating a maximum size of data for transmission. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables roadside units to efficiently coordinate transmitting multiple messages at a time, as recognized by Lepp (see at least [0022]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 11, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above, and Mortazavi remains silent on wherein a plurality of steps with regard to reducing the infrastructure assistance data are carried out based on the transmission capacity and/or based on the processing capacity, such that, depending on the transmission capacity and/or depending on the processing capacity, either a non-reduced data or a reduced data is included in the infrastructure assistance data.
Lepp teaches wherein a plurality of steps with regard to reducing the infrastructure assistance data are carried out based on the transmission capacity and/or based on the processing capacity, such that, depending on the transmission capacity and/or depending on the processing capacity, either a non-reduced data or a reduced data is included in the infrastructure assistance data. See at least [0092]-[0093] and [0112]-[0114], wherein steps are taken to reduce the infrastructure data message by fragmenting the message, such that a message fragment comprising reduced infrastructure data can be transmitted within the maximum frame size. If the entire infrastructure data message can be transmitted within the maximum frame size, than a non-reduced data message is included.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mortazavi with Lepp’s technique of reducing the infrastructure assistance data based on the transmission capacity, such that a whole or fragmented infrastructure data is transmitted based on the capacity. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables roadside units to efficiently coordinate transmitting multiple messages at a time, as recognized by Lepp (see at least [0022]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 12, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mortazavi remains silent on wherein a plurality of steps with regard to reducing the infrastructure assistance data are carried out based on an established rhythm, such that, based on the established rhythm, either a non-reduced data or a reduced data is included in the infrastructure assistance data.
Lepp teaches wherein a plurality of steps with regard to reducing the infrastructure assistance data are carried out based on an established rhythm, such that, based on the established rhythm, either a non-reduced data or a reduced data is included in the infrastructure assistance data. See at least [0106]-[0107], wherein the transmission of infrastructure data is carried out based on an established rhythm, comprising multiple periodic messages with different periodicities. The periodic messages are aggregated based on the periodicity of the messages and the maximum frame size. See at least [0092]-[0093] and [0112]-[0114], wherein steps are taken to reduce the infrastructure data message by fragmenting the message, such that a message fragment comprising reduced infrastructure data can be transmitted within the maximum frame size. If the entire infrastructure data message can be transmitted within the maximum frame size, than a non-reduced data message is included.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mortazavi with Lepp’s technique of reducing the infrastructure assistance data based on an established rhythm with different periodicities, such that a whole or fragmented infrastructure data is transmitted based on the capacity. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables roadside units to efficiently coordinate transmitting multiple messages at a time, as recognized by Lepp (see at least [0022]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches wherein a plurality of trajectory signals are determined and/or received, the trajectory signals represent a target trajectory of the motor vehicle and/or of at least one road user in the surrounding, wherein, based on the trajectory signals, it is determined whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, and/or wherein the infrastructure assistance data are determined based on the trajectory signals. See at least [0049], wherein the external resource obtains a route for each vehicle based on received vehicle data, including vehicle destination data and vehicle route data. See at least [0091]-[0092], wherein the selected infrastructure data is determined based on a current path of the vehicle. See at least [0028]-[0029], wherein the vehicle’s upcoming route is also used to determine whether the vehicle will encounter a condition to avoid, where the vehicle will need infrastructure data.
Regarding claim 14, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches wherein a plurality of steps with regard to reducing the infrastructure assistance data are carried out based on the trajectory signals, such that, based on the trajectory signals. See at least [0091], wherein the data included in the infrastructure assistance data is selected based on the trajectory signals.
Mortazavi remains silent on either a non-reduced data or a reduced data is included in the infrastructure assistance data.
Lepp teaches, either a non-reduced data or a reduced data is included in the infrastructure assistance data. See at least [0092]-[0093] and [0112]-[0114], wherein steps are taken to reduce the infrastructure data message by fragmenting the message, such that a message fragment comprising reduced infrastructure data can be transmitted within the maximum frame size. If the entire infrastructure data message can be transmitted within the maximum frame size, than a non-reduced data message is included.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mortazavi with Lepp’s technique of reducing the infrastructure assistance data based on the transmission capacity, such that a whole or fragmented infrastructure data is transmitted based on the capacity. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables roadside units to efficiently coordinate transmitting multiple messages at a time, as recognized by Lepp (see at least [0022]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 15, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches wherein, based on the surroundings signals, a traffic situation in the surroundings of the motor vehicle is determined, and based on the traffic situation, it is determined whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure. See at least [0049], wherein the received vehicle trajectory data is used to determine a traffic condition in the surroundings of the vehicle. See at least [0028]-[0029], wherein the infrastructure data is requested based on any conditions on the upcoming route of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches wherein a plurality of steps with regard to reducing the infrastructure assistance data are carried out based on the traffic situation, such that, based on the traffic situation. See at least [0091], wherein the data included in the infrastructure assistance data is selected based on the trajectory signals.
Mortazavi remains silent on either a non-reduced data or a reduced data is included in the infrastructure assistance data.
Lepp teaches, either a non-reduced data or a reduced data is included in the infrastructure assistance data. See at least [0092]-[0093] and [0112]-[0114], wherein steps are taken to reduce the infrastructure data message by fragmenting the message, such that a message fragment comprising reduced infrastructure data can be transmitted within the maximum frame size. If the entire infrastructure data message can be transmitted within the maximum frame size, than a non-reduced data message is included.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mortazavi with Lepp’s technique of reducing the infrastructure assistance data based on the transmission capacity, such that a whole or fragmented infrastructure data is transmitted based on the capacity. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables roadside units to efficiently coordinate transmitting multiple messages at a time, as recognized by Lepp (see at least [0022]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 17, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches wherein a check is carried out to determine whether the motor vehicle has requested the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, wherein, based on a result of the check, it is determined whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure. See at least [0090], [0096], and [0100], wherein the external resource checks for whether the vehicle requests infrastructure data, and, based on the check, the external resources determines that the vehicle requires infrastructure data.
Regarding claim 19, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches wherein, when the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, at least one region in a direction of travel of the motor vehicle is established, based on which the infrastructure assistance data is determined in a region-based manner. See at least [0063], [0091], and figure 3, wherein the infrastructure data is determined based on selecting an occlusion area in a direction of travel of the motor vehicle, so that the vehicle can identify occluded objects in its immediate path.
Regarding claim 20, Mortazavi teaches A system for an infrastructure-based assistance of a motor vehicle during a journey through an infrastructure. See at least figures 2-5.
including: at least one surroundings sensor arranged within the infrastructure, the at least one surroundings sensor detecting a surroundings of the motor vehicle and outputting a plurality of surroundings signals based on the detection and representing the surroundings of the motor vehicle. See at least [0097], [0101], and figure 6, steps 6130 and 6150, wherein the external resource receives infrastructure data from a plurality of infrastructure sensors disposed in the environment. The infrastructure assistance data is selected from the received infrastructure data to obtain sensor data representing the surroundings of the vehicle.
and an apparatus performing the steps of: determining whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure. See at least [0096], [0100], and figure 6, steps 6120 and 6140, comprising the steps of determining, by an external resource, that the vehicle requires infrastructure data as the vehicle travels through an area with infrastructure. See at least [0063]-[0067] and figure 3.
wherein, when the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, the method includes the following steps: determining an infrastructure assistance data for the journey of the motor vehicle through the infrastructure. See at least [0101] and figure 6, step 6150, wherein, based on the vehicle requiring infrastructure data, the external resource determines infrastructure data relevant to the vehicle.
generating a periodic message including the infrastructure assistance data. See at least [0102], [0106], and figure 6, step 6150, wherein the determined infrastructure data is continuously transmitted to the vehicle until the vehicle no longer requires the data. See at least [0053], wherein communications between the vehicle and the external resource comprise generated messages transmitted periodically.
and transmitting the periodic message including the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle. See at least [0103] and figure 6, step 6160, wherein the vehicle receives the transmitted infrastructure data from the external resource.
wherein, when the motor vehicle does not require infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, the method includes the following steps. See at least [0106], wherein, when the vehicle bypasses the occlusion scenario and no longer needs infrastructure data, the method 6000 continues until the vehicle reaches its destination or powers off. The steps 6100 and 6130 are continuously repeated when the vehicle does not require infrastructure data but it still traveling.
Mortazavi remains silent on generating a periodic message without an infrastructure assistance data, and transmitting the periodic message without the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle.
Lepp teaches generating a periodic message without an infrastructure assistance data, and transmitting the periodic message without the infrastructure assistance data to the motor vehicle. See at least [0108]-[0114] and figure 6, wherein a periodic message A is generated and transmitted. If another random message is generated, that message is aggregated with periodic message A and transmitted, but if it is not, then only periodic message A is generated and transmitted. See at least [0024], and [0061]-[0062], wherein the periodic and random messages are generated by an RSU. See at least [0076], [0086], and figure 4, wherein the messages include infrastructure assistance data such as map data and signal phase and timing data.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mortazavi with Lepp’s technique of generating and transmitting a periodic message without an infrastructure assistance data. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables roadside units to efficiently coordinate transmitting multiple messages at a time, as recognized by Lepp (see at least [0022]-[0032]).
Claims 3-5, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortazavi and Lepp as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20210118295 A1, with an earliest priority date of September 24th, 2018, hereinafter “Visintainer”.
Regarding claim 3, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches wherein the surroundings signals include one or more elements selected from the following groups of signals: a plurality of traffic state signals, which represent a traffic state in the surroundings of the motor vehicle. See at least [0049] and [0065], wherein the external resource determines a traffic state in the surroundings of the vehicle based on trajectory signals and traffic sensors.
a plurality of map signals, which represent a digital map of the surroundings of the motor vehicle. See at least [0092], wherein the external resource obtains a database with data describing the transportation network of the surroundings of the vehicle.
a plurality of traffic sign signals, which represent what a traffic sign is displaying and/or will display. See at least [0082], wherein the external resource obtains data on traffic signage such as yield signs and stop signs.
a plurality of signals from a plurality of traffic light systems, which represent a current and/or a future signal image of the traffic light systems. See at least [0082], wherein the external resource obtains data on traffic lights.
an object data describing at least one object in the surroundings; an occupancy status data describing an occupancy status of at least one surface in the surroundings; a surroundings sensor data based on a detection of the surroundings using at least one surroundings sensor; a surroundings sensor data-fusion data based on a plurality of detections of the surroundings using a plurality of surroundings sensors.
Mortazavi remains silent on a plurality of weather signals, which represent a weather in the surroundings of the motor vehicle; a road state data, which represent a road state of one or more roads in the surroundings of the motor vehicle; a plurality of remaining-time signals, which represent a remaining time of a light signal, in particular of a red light or a green light, of a traffic light system; a surrounding model of the surroundings.
Lepp teaches a plurality of weather signals, which represent a weather in the surroundings of the motor vehicle. See at least [0013], [0086], and Table 1, wherein the infrastructure assistance data includes Traveler Information Message data, including weather reports.
a plurality of remaining-time signals, which represent a remaining time of a light signal, in particular of a red light or a green light, of a traffic light system. See at least [0013], [0086], and Table 1, wherein the infrastructure assistance data includes Signal Phase and Timing data, including Signal Phase and Timing State of traffic signals encoded to be digitally communicated to vehicles.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Mortazavi with Lepp’s Traveler Information Message and Signal Phase and Timing data. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables roadside units to efficiently coordinate transmitting multiple messages at a time, as recognized by Lepp (see at least [0022]-[0032]).
Visintainer teaches a road state data, which represent a road state of one or more roads in the surroundings of the motor vehicle. See at least [0037], wherein the infrastructure assistance data includes data on temporary road events, such as the presence of ice or construction on a road.
a surrounding model of the surroundings. See at least [0050]-[0053], wherein an electric horizon from an automotive global navigation satellite system is obtained, representing a model of the immediate surroundings of the vehicle.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Mortazavi with Visintainer’s road state data and surrounding model data. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to access V2X services for driver assistance with increased performance and flexibility, as recognized by Visintainer (see at least [0102]-[0118]).
Regarding claim 4, Mortazavi, Lepp, and Visintainer in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above, and Mortazavi additionally teaches wherein the surroundings sensor data is a surroundings sensor raw data and the surroundings sensor data-fusion data is a surroundings sensor raw data-fusion data. See at least [0097], wherein the infrastructure data transmitted from the sensor is raw sensor data.
Regarding claim 5, Mortazavi, Lepp, and Visintainer in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above, and Mortazavi remains silent on determining a list of objects, which indicates a plurality of objects located in the surroundings of the motor vehicle, based on the surroundings signals; determining a relevance of the objects in the list of objects with regard to a relevance for the journey of the motor vehicle through the infrastructure; determining, based on the determined relevances, whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure; and wherein, when the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, determining the infrastructure assistance data includes selecting a sub-plurality of objects from the list of objects based on the determined relevances in order to determine a reduced list of objects, which indicates a plurality of selected objects, such that the infrastructure assistance data include the reduced list of objects.
Visintainer teaches determining a list of objects, which indicates a plurality of objects located in the surroundings of the motor vehicle, based on the surroundings signals. See at least [0063] and figure 5, wherein a light of objects is created, indicating a plurality of objects located near the vehicle.
determining a relevance of the objects in the list of objects with regard to a relevance for the journey of the motor vehicle through the infrastructure. See at least [0066], a filtering criterion is determined for the list of objects, in order to determine the relevance of each object to the host vehicle’s motion and travel.
determining, based on the determined relevances, whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure. See at least [0070], wherein the relevance of objects in the list of objects is used to determine which data is needed to implement driver assistance functions of the vehicle as it travels.
and wherein, when the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, determining the infrastructure assistance data includes selecting a sub-plurality of objects from the list of objects based on the determined relevances in order to determine a reduced list of objects, which indicates a plurality of selected objects, such that the infrastructure assistance data include the reduced list of objects. See at least [0067]-[0068], wherein, based on the implementation of driver assistance functions that require infrastructure data, a subset of objects is selected to determine a relevant object list with a reduced number of objects.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Mortazavi with Visintainer’s technique of determining an object list, determining a relevance of the objects, determining whether the vehicle needs infrastructure-based assistance based on the relevance, and selecting a subset of objects to obtain a reduced object list as the infrastructure assistance data. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to access V2X services for driver assistance with increased performance and flexibility, as recognized by Visintainer (see at least [0102]-[0118]).
Regarding claim 18, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, and Mortazavi remains silent on wherein, based on the surroundings signals, it is determined whether the motor vehicle requires a handling recommendation from the infrastructure, which would result in a change to a driving task, and, if so, the determination as to whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure is carried out based on the determination as to whether the motor vehicle requires the handling recommendation from the infrastructure, such that, when the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, the infrastructure assistance data include the handling recommendation.
Visintainer teaches wherein, based on the surroundings signals, it is determined whether the motor vehicle requires a handling recommendation from the infrastructure, which would result in a change to a driving task. See at least [0014] and [0048], wherein the surroundings detection is used to determine if the vehicle needs infrastructure data to implement SAE applications such as intersection movement assist (IMA) and left turn assist (LTA). See at least [0027], wherein the V2X infrastructure information is used to automatically change the maneuver, or driving task, of the vehicle.
and, if so, the determination as to whether the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure is carried out based on the determination as to whether the motor vehicle requires the handling recommendation from the infrastructure. See at least [0048]-[0051], wherein relevant infrastructure data is identified based on the maneuvers the vehicle will make and the data needed for the maneuvers.
such that, when the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, the infrastructure assistance data include the handling recommendation. See at least [0067], wherein the infrastructure messages include infrastructure data relevant to the SAE applications (including IMA and LTA).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Mortazavi with Visintainer’s technique of determining that the vehicle requires a handling recommendation from the infrastructure, which would resulting in a change to a driving task, and determining the infrastructure assistance data based on the handling recommendation required. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables vehicles to access V2X services for driver assistance with increased performance and flexibility, as recognized by Visintainer (see at least [0102]-[0118]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortazavi and Lepp as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20210046950 A1, with an earliest priority date of August 16th, 2019, hereinafter “Prehofer”.
Regarding claim 9, Mortazavi and Lepp in combination teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, and Mortazavi remains silent on wherein, when the motor vehicle requires the infrastructure-based assistance for the journey through the infrastructure, a meta-information is determined, such that the infrastructure assistance data include the meta-information. See at least [0053]-[0054] and [0101], wherein the infrastructure assistance data includes metadata comprising identifiers of relevant infrastructure sensors.
Mortazavi remains silent on meta-information regarding that which is not included in the infrastructure assistance data.
Prehofer teaches meta-information regarding that which is not included in the infrastructure assistance data. See at least [0048], wherein metadata identifying data that has been deleted is determined, such that the metadata indicates the available data.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Mortazavi with Prehofer’s metadata. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables the transmission of vehicle environment data in a manner adequate for the data situation and data transmission standard available, as recognized by Prehofer (see at least [0013]-[0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights