DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 08/07/2025. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 08/07/2025 is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The use of the terms “Bluetooth” and “Wi-Fi,” which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should each be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear (i.e., every letter of the terms should be capitalized) or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 9:
In claims 1 and 9, it is unclear whether “a captured image” refers to the same “image” introduced in the first line of each claim. This leads to indefiniteness regarding whether multiple images are used as part of the apparatus and method. For examination purposes, the “captured image” is interpreted as being the same as the “image” introduced in the first line of claims 1 and 9. Regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, clarification is required.
Regarding claims 7 and 15:
Claims 7 and 15 each specify that “the processor tracks the cooperative target vehicle within the image to continuously update the communication ID.” However, it is unclear how the processor could continuously update information based on tracking the cooperative target vehicle within a single image. Specifically, it is unclear whether multiple images are used as part of this process or whether the cooperative target vehicle is somehow tracked through the use of one singular image. For examination purposes, claims 7 and 15 are interpreted as if the cooperative target vehicle were tracked through multiple images which include the image referenced in the claims. Regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, clarification is required.
Regarding claims 2-8 and 10-16:
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected because of their dependency upon rejected claims 1 and 9.
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 1-6, 8-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 9:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for cooperative communication based on an image. Claim 9 is directed to the corresponding method. Claims 1 and 9 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1 and 9 recite the abstract concept of identifying a target vehicle within an image. This abstract idea is described at least in claims 1 and 9 by the mental process step of identifying the target cooperative vehicle within the image based on a captured image of the cooperative target vehicle and the cooperative information. This step falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as it includes a human looking at an image and considering information to mentally identify the cooperative target vehicle. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the human mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
With respect to claims 1 and 9, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the step of identifying the cooperative target vehicle precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the “processor” language, the claims encompass a human mentally identifying the cooperative target vehicle based on a captured image of the vehicle and the cooperative information.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites a processor which is a generic computer component (as supported by ¶ 33 of the instant specification) that is simply employed as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computer components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 also recites that a communication unit is configured to perform wireless communication with a cooperative target vehicle performing cooperative driving, and that the processor is configured to receive cooperative information for the cooperative driving from the cooperative target vehicle through the communication unit. These steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as they simply gather data necessary to perform the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9 recites a processor which is a generic computer component (as supported by ¶ 33 of the instant specification) that is simply employed as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computer components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 9 additionally recites a step of allowing the processor to communicate with a cooperative target vehicle through a communication unit to receive cooperative information for cooperative driving from the cooperative target vehicle. This step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as it simply gathers data necessary to perform the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). Similarly, the step of allowing the processor to communicate with the cooperative target vehicle amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, because the step does not impose any meaningful limitations on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The instant specification provides no indication that the recited communication unit and processor are anything other than a conventional transceiver and computer. The mere use of such generic and conventional computer components for executing the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the recited steps of performing wireless communication with a cooperative target vehicle performing cooperative driving, receiving cooperative information for the cooperative driving from the cooperative target vehicle through the communication unit, allowing a processor to communicate with a cooperative target vehicle through a communication unit to receive cooperative information for cooperative driving from the cooperative target vehicle, and allowing the processor to communicate with the cooperative target vehicle through the communication unit are mere insignificant extra-solution activities that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1 and 9 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, and 16:
Claims 2-4 and 10-12 recite limitations that further define the mental processes of claims 1 and 9. For example, claim 2 specifies that the cooperative information includes at least one of communication identification (ID), instantaneous location information, appearance information, and driving information of the cooperative target vehicle. These types of limitations do not preclude the abstract idea from being practically performed in the human mind, and as such, these limitations are considered to be additional mental process steps.
Claims 5-6, 8, 13-14, and 16 recite the additional mental process steps of using the appearance information to identify the cooperative target vehicle within the image and match the communication ID to the cooperative target vehicle, estimating a relative position of the cooperative target vehicle using the instantaneous location information and location information of a host vehicle, extracting an appearance of an object in the image based on the relative location, comparing the extracted appearance of the object with the appearance information to identify the cooperative target vehicle among the objects within the image, and re-matching the communication ID to the cooperative target vehicle by identifying the cooperative target vehicle within the image using the appearance information based on whether a preset setting time has elapsed or whether a driving environment of the host vehicle changes. These limitations are considered additional mental process steps because they encompass a human mentally identifying the cooperative target vehicle within the image based on appearance information such as a color of the vehicle, using pen and paper to assist in mentally matching the communication ID to the cooperative target vehicle, mentally estimating a relative position of the cooperative target vehicle based on location information of the cooperative target vehicle and the host vehicle, mentally extracting (i.e., identifying) an appearance such as a color of an object based on the relative location, mentally comparing the extracted appearance of the object with the appearance information to identify the cooperative target vehicle among the objects within the image, and repeating the step of using pen and paper to assist in mentally matching the communication ID to the cooperative target vehicle by mentally identifying the cooperative target vehicle within the image using the appearance information based on whether a preset setting time has elapsed or whether a driving environment of the host vehicle changes.
As explained above, dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, and 16 only recite additional mental process steps and limitations further defining the mental process. These claims contain no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, and 16 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newman et al. (US 2022/0157168 A1), hereinafter referred to as Newman.
Regarding claim 1:
Newman discloses the following limitations:
“An apparatus for cooperative communication based on an image, comprising: a communication unit configured to perform wireless communication with a cooperative target vehicle performing cooperative driving.” (Newman ¶ 26: “Traffic awareness and V2X connectivity are essential in detecting hazards, planning hazard avoidance strategies, and communicating with the other vehicles to cooperatively react to an imminent collision. By exchanging messages at electronic speeds, computer-operated vehicles can coordinate their actions, cooperatively adjust their speed and direction, and thereby avoid almost all types of highway accidents, saving countless lives.” Also, Newman ¶ 30: “A ‘planning entity’ is a vehicle or other wireless entity that initiates the procedure by broadcasting a ‘planning message’, requesting that other vehicles take an image, such as a 360-degree image, of surrounding traffic at a particular time.”)
“and a processor configured to receive cooperative information for the cooperative driving from the cooperative target vehicle through the communication unit.” (Newman ¶ 83: “The system and method may be fully implemented in any number of computing devices. Typically, instructions are laid out on computer readable media, generally non-transitory, and these instructions are sufficient to allow a processor in the computing device to implement the method of the invention.” Also, Newman ¶ 33: “The planning and imaging messages may also include subsidiary information, such as the GPS coordinates of the transmitting vehicle if known, as well as the transmitting vehicle type (sedan, bus, truck, etc.), the color, and/or which lane that the transmitting vehicle is in, among other parameters which may simplify the viewpoint fusion and resolve ambiguities.”)
“and identify the cooperative target vehicle within the image based on a captured image of the cooperative target vehicle and the cooperative information.” (Newman ¶ 55: “At 304, the first vehicle (and optionally other entities) receives the imaging messages from the participating vehicles. The first vehicle analyzes the received images along with its own image acquired at the specified time, and identifies objects that appear in more than one of the images. At 305, the first vehicle calculates the locations of those objects in a two-dimensional coordinate system, thereby determining a listing of coordinates and, optionally, a traffic map displaying those objects. … When the vehicle locations are dependent on multiple viewpoints with unknown measurement errors, the first vehicle may perform a fitting routine to determine each vehicle position using, for example, a least-squares or maximum-likelihood or other best-fit location for each vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 2:
Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” and Newman also discloses “wherein the cooperative information includes at least one of communication identification (ID), instantaneous location information, appearance information, and driving information of the cooperative target vehicle.” (Newman ¶ 33: “The planning and imaging messages may also include subsidiary information, such as the GPS coordinates of the transmitting vehicle if known, as well as the transmitting vehicle type (sedan, bus, truck, etc.), the color, and/or which lane that the transmitting vehicle is in, among other parameters which may simplify the viewpoint fusion and resolve ambiguities.” This at least teaches the cooperative information including “instantaneous location information,” “appearance information,” and “driving information” as claimed. Also, Newman ¶ 47: “The first vehicle 101 included its wireless address in the planning message, and the second vehicle 102 included its wireless addresses in the imaging message.” This teaches the cooperative information including “communication identification (ID)” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 2, consistent with the instant specification, the cooperative information including “at least one of communication identification (ID), instantaneous location information, appearance information, and driving information of the cooperative target vehicle” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while all four of the options have been addressed here, only one of the four options is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 3:
Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 2,” and Newman also discloses “wherein the instantaneous location information includes at least one of road surface position coordinates of the cooperative target vehicle and a road surface position coordinate measurement time at which the road surface position coordinates are measured.” (Newman ¶ 33: “The planning and imaging messages may also include subsidiary information, such as the GPS coordinates of the transmitting vehicle if known… If the GPS data is included, preferably the GPS acquisition time and the speed of the vehicle are also indicated, so that the planning entity can correct for the displacement of the vehicle between the time of GPS acquisition and image acquisition.”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 3, consistent with the instant specification, the instantaneous location information including “at least one of road surface position coordinates of the cooperative target vehicle and a road surface position coordinate measurement time at which the road surface position coordinates are measured” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while both the “road surface position coordinates of the cooperative target vehicle” and the “road surface position coordinate measurement time at which the road surface position coordinates are measured” have been addressed here, only one of the two options is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 4:
Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 2,” and Newman also discloses “wherein the appearance information includes at least one of a color, a vehicle body size, a vehicle type, and an exterior component of the cooperative target vehicle.” (Newman ¶ 33: “The planning and imaging messages may also include subsidiary information, such as the GPS coordinates of the transmitting vehicle if known, as well as the transmitting vehicle type (sedan, bus, truck, etc.), the color, and/or which lane that the transmitting vehicle is in, among other parameters which may simplify the viewpoint fusion and resolve ambiguities.” This at least teaches the appearance information including “a color” and “a vehicle type” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 4, consistent with the instant specification, the appearance information including “at least one of a color, a vehicle body size, a vehicle type, and an exterior component of the cooperative target vehicle” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “color” and “vehicle type” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 5:
Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 2,” and Newman also discloses “wherein the processor uses the appearance information to identify the cooperative target vehicle within the image and match the communication ID to the cooperative target vehicle.” (Newman ¶¶ 46-47 and FIG. 1D reproduced below: “FIG. 1D is a schematic sketch of an exemplary embodiment of a traffic map derived by viewpoint fusion, according to some embodiments. As depicted in this non-limiting example, the traffic map 130 includes the 4-lane highway 130, an icon or box representing the location of the first vehicle 131, another icon or box representing the location of the second vehicle 132, and further icons or boxes representing the locations of the third vehicle 133, the fourth vehicle 134, the fifth vehicle 135, and the roadside object 136. Each of the boxes is in a position, relative to the others, as determined form the images. … Wireless addresses are provided in three of the boxes 131, 132, 136. The first vehicle 101 included its wireless address in the planning message, and the second vehicle 102 included its wireless addresses in the imaging message.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
253
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9:
Newman discloses the following limitations:
“A method of cooperative communication based on an image, comprising: allowing a processor to communicate with a cooperative target vehicle through a communication unit to receive cooperative information for cooperative driving from the cooperative target vehicle.” (Newman ¶ 83: “The system and method may be fully implemented in any number of computing devices. Typically, instructions are laid out on computer readable media, generally non-transitory, and these instructions are sufficient to allow a processor in the computing device to implement the method of the invention.” Additionally, Newman ¶ 26: “Traffic awareness and V2X connectivity are essential in detecting hazards, planning hazard avoidance strategies, and communicating with the other vehicles to cooperatively react to an imminent collision. By exchanging messages at electronic speeds, computer-operated vehicles can coordinate their actions, cooperatively adjust their speed and direction, and thereby avoid almost all types of highway accidents, saving countless lives.”)
“identifying, by the processor, the cooperative target vehicle within the image based on a captured image of the cooperative target vehicle and the cooperative information.” (Newman ¶ 55: “At 304, the first vehicle (and optionally other entities) receives the imaging messages from the participating vehicles. The first vehicle analyzes the received images along with its own image acquired at the specified time, and identifies objects that appear in more than one of the images. At 305, the first vehicle calculates the locations of those objects in a two-dimensional coordinate system, thereby determining a listing of coordinates and, optionally, a traffic map displaying those objects. … When the vehicle locations are dependent on multiple viewpoints with unknown measurement errors, the first vehicle may perform a fitting routine to determine each vehicle position using, for example, a least-squares or maximum-likelihood or other best-fit location for each vehicle.”)
“and allowing the processor to communicate with the cooperative target vehicle through the communication unit.” (Newman ¶ 57 discloses that “At 307, the first vehicle broadcasts a mapping message, including the local traffic map or coordinate listing, to other proximate vehicles.”)
Regarding claims 10-13:
Claims 10-13 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 2-5 above, respectively.
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 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Kelkar et al. (US 2020/0312155 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kelkar.
Regarding claim 6:
Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 5,” and Newman also discloses “wherein the processor estimates a relative position of the cooperative target vehicle using the instantaneous location information and location information of a host vehicle.” (Newman ¶ 28: “Traffic ‘situation awareness’ includes determining which vehicles are present, measuring their locations or distances relative to the measuring entity or other point, and determining their status.” Also, Newman ¶ 57: “the mapping message may be formatted as a list of coordinates specifying the location of each (relevant) object in view. Each object may be a vehicle or pedestrian or other entity, especially wireless or mobile objects, in the images. If the distance scale is known, the coordinates may be in meters relative to an origin, such as an origin at the first vehicle or other relevant point.”)
Newman does not explicitly disclose that the processor “extracts an appearance of an object in the image based on the relative location, and compares the extracted appearance of the object with the appearance information to identify the cooperative target vehicle among the objects within the image.” However, Kelkar does teach this limitation. (Kelkar ¶ 133: “the host vehicle 300 identifies a specific cooperating vehicle based on the cooperating vehicle's relative position and the host vehicle 300 receives a redundant identifier indicating that the cooperating vehicle is red. The host vehicle 300 may use an image sensor and image processing to determine the color of the identified vehicle at the vehicle's relative position. If the identified vehicle is blue, the host vehicle 300 may request an updated vehicle identifier. If the identified vehicle is red, the host vehicle 300 confirms the identity of the broadcasting cooperating vehicle.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Newman by extracting appearance characteristics of an object in the image at the relative location and comparing the appearance characteristic with the received appearance information to identify the cooperative target vehicle as taught by Kelkar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kelkar ¶ 267 teaches that this can be used to allow the host vehicle to quickly identify cooperative vehicles while driving, especially if distinct appearance characteristics are used (e.g., Kelkar gives an example of specifying a blue car color, which would be helpful since only approximately 8% of vehicles in North America are the color blue).
Regarding claim 7:
Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 5,” but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the processor tracks the cooperative target vehicle within the image to continuously update the communication ID.” However, Kelkar does teach this limitation. (Kelkar ¶ 302: “The vehicle icons may represent cooperating vehicle on the roadway illustrated in the map area 2102 in real-time. Accordingly, a user can track the locations of cooperating vehicles.” Also, Kelkar ¶ 133: “The host vehicle 300 may use an image sensor and image processing to determine the color of the identified vehicle at the vehicle's relative position. If the identified vehicle is blue, the host vehicle 300 may request an updated vehicle identifier. If the identified vehicle is red, the host vehicle 300 confirms the identity of the broadcasting cooperating vehicle. A similar process could be carried out with other redundant identifiers, such as license plate numbers or vehicle type or shape (car, truck, sedan, coupe or hatchback).” Further, Kelkar ¶ 207: “the principal parameter coordination engine 512 may aggregate, maintain, and update cooperating parameters in the principal profile 1402 for the principal vehicle 906. Likewise, the subordinate parameter coordination engine 518 may aggregate, maintain, and update cooperating parameters in the subordinate profile 1404 for the subordinate vehicle 908.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Newman by tracking a cooperative target vehicle within the image to continuously update its communication ID as taught by Kelkar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that traffic is highly dynamic, with vehicles and objects constantly moving in relation to each other; therefore, it would be important to continuously update the map information to ensure that the most up-to-date data is used when making driving decisions for the host vehicle.
Regarding claims 14-15:
Claims 14-15 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 6-7 above, respectively.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Fukuzaki et al. (US 2020/0034642 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fukuzaki.
Regarding claim 8:
Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 5,” but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the processor re-matches the communication ID to the cooperative target vehicle by identifying the cooperative target vehicle within the image using the appearance information based on whether a preset setting time has elapsed or whether a driving environment of the host vehicle changes.” However, Fukuzaki does teach this limitation. (Fukuzaki ¶¶ 55-57: “The photographing device 108 performs photographing continuously on the basis of the instruction to start photographing. For example, the photographing device 108 may photograph several times or more per second. The photographing device 108 has a fixed angle of view to photograph the vehicle B passing by on an opposite lane in front of the vehicle A. The photographing device 108 outputs image data generated by the photographing to the vehicle-mounted device 10A. The vehicle identification unit 16 of the vehicle-mounted device 10 sequentially acquires images output by the photographing device 108 (step S601). Whenever the vehicle identification unit 16 acquires an image, it determines whether a vehicle has been photographed by analyzing the image (step S602). The vehicle identification unit 16 performs the determination according to pattern recognition processing that performs determination on whether the passing vehicle B is reflected in the image by, for example, comparing a pattern of an object photographed in the image with an image pattern representing a vehicle stored in advance. … The reception information detector 17 detects the coordinates of the vehicle B on the round and an ID of the vehicle B included in the inter-vehicle communication information.” Acquiring the new images continuously “several times or more per second” teaches to identify the cooperative target vehicle “based on whether a preset setting time has elapsed” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 8, consistent with the instant specification, “identifying the cooperative target vehicle within the image using the appearance information based on whether a preset setting time has elapsed or whether a driving environment of the host vehicle changes” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only identifying the cooperative target vehicle “based on whether a preset setting time has elapsed” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Newman by repeating the step of matching the communication ID to the cooperative target vehicle by identifying the cooperative target vehicle when a preset setting time has elapsed as taught by Fukuzaki with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that traffic participants are constantly moving in relation to each other, which means that regularly updated images with up-to-date camera data would be required for assisting the host vehicle in making informed driving decisions.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 8 above, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 2017/0184726 A1) Abstract and ¶ 44 disclose that “A vehicle cooperative object positioning optimization method and comprises steps of: receiving an information package by the local vehicle and the information package having a vehicle original coordinate and at least one object original coordinate provided by a neighbor vehicle respectively including different positioning accuracies; performing a time delay compensation for the vehicle original coordinate and the object original coordinate to acquire a vehicle coordinate and an object coordinate of the neighbor vehicle respectively; performing an optimizing procedure to optimize the vehicle coordinate and the object coordinate respectively so as to obtain the vehicle optimized coordinate and the object optimized coordinate,” where “The object original coordinate is the information of the objects detected by those sensors (such as radar, lidar, camera and so on) in the local vehicle and the objects may be vehicles, pedestrians, moving objects, fixtures, and so on.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights