Patent Application 18165561 - SELECTIVE INFORMATION GATHERING SYSTEM FOR

Title: SELECTIVE INFORMATION GATHERING SYSTEM FOR MULTIPLE VEHICLES

Application Information

Invention Title: SELECTIVE INFORMATION GATHERING SYSTEM FOR MULTIPLE VEHICLES
Application Number: 18165561
Submission Date: 2025-05-13T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-02-07T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-02-07T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 701
National Sub-Class: 029300
Examiner Employee Number: 90395
Art Unit: 3668
Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

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 .

In response to restriction filed 04/18/2025, claims 1-14 and 20 (Group I) has been elected without traverse. Claims 15-19 have been withdrawn.

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 9-11 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.
Claims 9-11 recite, “the decision vehicle is the sensing/communicating vehicle”. It is unclear how this language fit into what is currently being recited in the independent claim 1, which requires receiving and transmitting data from the decision vehicle to another vehicle such as sensing/communicating vehicle. For example, if the decision vehicle is the sensing vehicle, it is unclear how sensing vehicle receives observation data sent from the same sensing vehicle. Similarly, it is unclear how communicating vehicle transmits the data to the same communicating vehicle.

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, 9-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to a method for receiving and transmitting data from one vehicle to another vehicle. Therefore, claim 1 is 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving, at a decision vehicle, a plurality of observation data sent from at least one sensing vehicle communicatively coupled with a remote device;
aggregating the plurality of observation data into an aggregated data package;
determining a communicating vehicle, wherein the communicating vehicle is communicatively coupled with the remote device; and
transmitting the aggregated data package to the communicating 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 and with pen/paper. For example, “aggregating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person viewing plurality of data files and forming a simple judgement. Paragraph 5 of applicant’s disclosure states that aggregating the plurality of observation data into an aggregated data package comprises processing an item of the plurality of observation data. A simple “processing of an item” can be performed via human mind and with pen/paper which does not require complex computation. Also, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person choosing a target vehicle which can be also performed via human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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 method comprising:
receiving, at a decision vehicle, a plurality of observation data sent from at least one sensing vehicle communicatively coupled with a remote device;
aggregating the plurality of observation data into an aggregated data package;
determining a communicating vehicle, wherein the communicating vehicle is communicatively coupled with the remote device; and
transmitting the aggregated data package to the communicating vehicle.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving …transmitting,” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a generic computer (a processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and transmitting step from vehicle and remote device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means providing and receiving data and also “remote device” is recited at a high level of generality), and amounts to mere data transmitting/gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.

Also, the mere presence of the “remote device” and the remote device being coupled to the vehicles do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because claims merely use computer (e.g. remote server) as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Also, these additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. Also, it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception in a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. mere transferring of data in vehicular technology area).

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 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 1 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 “receiving…transmitting” amount 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 of “receiving…transmitting” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further additional elements, such as “remote device” and “…vehicle” do not amount to an innovative concept, since as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a generic computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved (See, MPEP 2106.05 I.A.) (Also see specification, paragraph 66). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving…transmitting” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification (par. 2) recites that modern vehicles often communicate collected observation data to remote devices for further processing, and the specification further does not provide any indication that the remote device is anything other than a conventional cloud server (specification, paragraph 35). 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 communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional abstract ideas and aspects of the judicial exception (e.g. additional insignificant extra-solution activities) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 8-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 9-14 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim 20 recites same or substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore claim 20 is rejected under same rationale.

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 1-5, 7-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 20190212746 A1)

In regards to claim 1, Cheng teaches, A method comprising:
receiving, at a decision vehicle, a plurality of observation data sent from at least one sensing vehicle communicatively coupled with a remote device; (See fig. 1E, ego vehicle 123 and remote vehicles 124A-N connected via network 105, fig. 3, step 303, each of the ego vehicle and the remote vehicles collects their own sensor measurements…steps 305-308, the sensor system of the ego vehicle receives sensor data from a plurality of remote vehicles and builds the sensor data set.)
aggregating the plurality of observation data into an aggregated data package; (See fig. 3, step 308, ego vehicle receives sensor data from a plurality of remote vehicles and builds the sensor data set…step 309, the sensor system of the ego vehicle reconciles the heatmaps of the remote vehicles and the ego vehicle to form a combined heatmap. The combined heatmap is a 3D map built by the sensor system based at least in part on the 2D maps included in the sensor data set as recorded by ego vehicle and the remote vehicles. The combined heatmap describes the location and classification for each object in the roadway environment that includes the ego vehicle and the remote vehicles, absent deficiencies caused by occlusions, misidentified objects, and unidentified objects. Also see step 310)
determining a communicating vehicle, wherein the communicating vehicle is communicatively coupled with the remote device; and transmitting the aggregated data package to the communicating vehicle. (See fig. 3, At step 312, the sensor system of the ego vehicle broadcasts digital data describing the combined heatmap to the remote vehicles so that they have access to the combined heatmap. This digital data includes, for example, the combined heatmap data.)

Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.

In regards to claim 2, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1, further wherein the communicating vehicle is determined based on at least one of:
a financial cost of communicating the aggregated data package; a material cost of communicating the aggregated data package; a quality of the communication systems available at the communicating vehicle; a capabilities of the communication systems available at the communicating vehicle; (See paragraph 44, the sensor system described herein uses intervehicle communication technology to enable two or more vehicles (at least one of which is the automated vehicle that includes the sensor system 199 described herein) to share digital data with one another and enable their onboard systems (e.g., an automated driving system) to perceive the roadway environment more fully relative to the perception abilities of these onboard systems without the benefit of the digital data. Also see paragraph 55,) a service requirements of the communication systems available at the communicating vehicle; an age of the communication systems available at the communicating vehicle; and a location of the communicating vehicle. (See figs. 1A-1D and associated paragraphs)

In regards to claim 3, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1, further wherein aggregating the plurality of observation data into an aggregated data package comprises processing an item of the plurality of observation data using systems located at the decision vehicle. (See fig. 1E, 3, steps 308-310, and associated paragraphs, aggregating the plurality of sensor data into dataset/heatmap is performed on ego vehicle 123)

In regards to claim 4, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1,
further wherein aggregating the plurality of observation data into an aggregated data package comprises associating a first item of the plurality of observation data with a second item of the plurality of observation data based on the first item and second item both containing data describing one object. (See fig. 1E, 3, steps 308-310, and associated paragraphs, the sensor system of the ego vehicle reconciles the heatmaps of the remote vehicles and the ego vehicle to form a combined heatmap. The combined heatmap is a 3D map built by the sensor system based at least in part on the 2D maps included in the sensor data set as recorded by ego vehicle and the remote vehicles. The combined heatmap describes the location and classification for each object in the roadway environment that includes the ego vehicle and the remote vehicles, absent deficiencies caused by occlusions, misidentified objects, and unidentified objects.)

In regards to claim 5, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1,
further wherein aggregating the plurality of observation data into an aggregated data package comprises excluding a first item of the plurality of observation data wherein the first item contains measurements which conflict with a second item of the plurality of observation data. (See fig. 1E, 3, steps 308-310, and associated paragraphs, the sensor system of the ego vehicle reconciles the heatmaps of the remote vehicles and the ego vehicle to form a combined heatmap. The combined heatmap is a 3D map built by the sensor system based at least in part on the 2D maps included in the sensor data set as recorded by ego vehicle and the remote vehicles. The combined heatmap describes the location and classification for each object in the roadway environment that includes the ego vehicle and the remote vehicles, absent deficiencies caused by occlusions, misidentified objects, and unidentified objects…see paragraph 142, This combined heatmap is inherently better than a preliminary heatmap because, for example, it removes occlusions, missed detections of objects and uncertain detections of objects.)

In regards to claim 7, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1,
further wherein aggregating the plurality of observation data into an aggregated data package comprises excluding an item of the plurality of observation data wherein a confidence value associated with the item falls below a determined threshold value. (See paragraph 144, one or more of the vehicles (V1, V2 and V3) include a sensor system…the positions are estimated by the sensor system by considering each vehicle's position and heading along with the relative position occupied by the object of interest. In some embodiments, each detected object has a confidence value associated with it as the sensor system determines and reports the confidence value when detecting the object. See paragraph 10, The method where the combined heatmap removes one or more of the following that are present in the preliminary heatmap for an individual remote vehicle: an occlusion; a missed detection of an object; and an uncertain detection of an object. Also see paragraph 152 and fig. 10, dark image shown (e.g. lowest brightness) when confidence level falls below some limit. )

In regards to claim 8, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1,
further wherein aggregating the plurality of observation data into an aggregated data package comprises converting a first item of the plurality of observation data to a file format, wherein a second item of the plurality of observation data is in the file format. (See paragraph 131, the sensor system of the ego vehicle reconciles the heatmaps of the remote vehicles and the ego vehicle to form a combined heatmap. The combined heatmap is a 3D map built by the sensor system based at least in part on the 2D maps included in the sensor data set as recorded by ego vehicle and the remote vehicles. Converted into 3D map file format)

In regards to claim 9, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1,
further wherein: the decision vehicle is the sensing vehicle; and some or all of the plurality of received observation data comprises data transmitted from sensors located at the decision vehicle. (See fig. 1E, ego vehicle 123, fig. 3, step 303, each of the ego vehicle…collects their own sensor measurements…step 305, each of the ego vehicle…determines their own preliminary heat maps for each scene based on their own sensor measurements. These preliminary heat maps are then included in their sensor data along with their sensor measurements…)

In regards to claim 10, Cheng teaches the method of claim 9,
further wherein: the decision vehicle is the communicating vehicle; the decision vehicle comprises a memory; and transmitting the aggregated data package to the communicating vehicle comprises storing the aggregated data package at the memory. (See fig. 1E, Ego vehicle 123 has memory 127 which stores sensor data 196A, sensor data set 156, and combined heatmap data 157)

In regards to claim 11, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1,
further wherein: the decision vehicle is the communicating vehicle; the decision vehicle comprises a memory; and transmitting the aggregated data package to the communicating vehicle comprises storing the aggregated data package at the memory. (See fig. 1E, Ego vehicle 123 has memory 127 which stores sensor data 196A, sensor data set 156, and combined heatmap data 157)

In regards to claim 12, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1,
further wherein the sensing vehicle is the communicating vehicle. (See fig. 3, step 312, vehicle who provided ego vehicle with sensor data is also capable of receiving combined heat map)

In regards to claim 13, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1,
further wherein the sensing vehicle and communicating vehicle communicate with the decision vehicle over a network connection. (See fig. 1E, remote vehicles 124A-N and ego vehicle 123 are in communication via network)

In regards to claim 14, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1,
further wherein the communicating vehicle communicates with the remote device over a network connection. (See fig. 1E, remote vehicles 124A-N and ego vehicle 123 are in communication via network)

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.

This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 20190212746 A1) in view of Lei (US 20230322255 A1)

In regards to claim 6, Cheng teaches the method of claim 1.
Cheng teaches plurality of observation data into aggregated data package as well as confidence value associated with observation data (par. 149, 152 and see rejection of claim 1 above), however, does not specifically teach, excluding a first item of the … data wherein a first confidence value associated with the first item is less than a second confidence value associated with a second item of the … data
Lei further teaches, excluding a first item of the … data wherein a first confidence value associated with the first item is less than a second confidence value associated with a second item of the … data (See paragraph 30, the process may compare the received results to vehicle sensor data at 219 and identify any seeming errors in the reported data at 221. In the absence of errors, the sensor data is combined with the node data and processes, otherwise any determined errors can be reported at 223 and then the best version (e.g., above a certain confidence level) of the node data can be selected at 225 and combined with the sensor data for processing at 217.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Cheng to further comprise method taught by Lei because by using high confidence value items, errors can be reduced and accuracy of detection of objects can be improved.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.

/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668