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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, applicant is correct that all misspellings of “cooperative” in the specification were already corrected by the amendment of 9 December 2024. Accordingly, the objection of 21 August 2025 (being no longer applicable) is hereby withdrawn.
Second, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are in large measure overcome by applicant’s amendments. However, new issues are raised in this respect by the claim amendments, as detailed below. In this respect, while the applicant’s arguments with respect to the advisory action and the (newly formulated) claim language are largely convincing, issues regarding e.g., the open-ended (“including”) manner in which the “set” or apparent alternatives is defined/claimed make the metes and the bounds of the claim unclear (e.g., the reasons in the “set” can apparently include anything without metes or bounds). See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Third, applicant’s arguments regarding the claim language distinguishing over e.g., Yoon (‘310) are not convincing. In this respect, after block quoting the claim language in claim 33, applicant asserts:
Neither paragraph [0029] nor [0033] of Yoon disclose or suggest the prioritization order of claim 33 that includes a specific order of prioritization among a set of reasons including “lane changes indicated as being required by a traffic law ... strategic lane changes indicated as being for route purposes... cooperative lane changes indicated to make room for other vehicle traffic, and ... tactical lane changes indicated to pass slower vehicles.”
However, the examiner shows below four priority levels of reasons in Yoon (‘310), e.g., namely (in descending order of priority), i) a lane change due to no lane, ii) a lane change for a right turn or a left turn, or iii) normal lane change, and in the case that the reasons have the same priority level (e.g., for normal lane changes in the priority level iii), then also determining priority based additionally on iv) the accessibility of the target road (giving priority to the vehicle which is closer to the center of the target road/lane than the other) and/or to a join point (cf. FIG. 2A), with the examiner also showing below how the lane change due to no lane indicates a lane change required by traffic law (since a vehicle may not be driven out of the lane), a lane change for a right or left turn indicates a strategic lane change for route purposes, and (with a new sketch based on FIG. 2A in Yoon (‘310)) how the indicated priority levels iii) and iv) in Yoon (‘310) satisfy the claimed indication of and prioritization order between “cooperative lane changes indicated to make room for other vehicle traffic, and ... tactical lane changes indicated to pass slower vehicles”. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this respect.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 33 to 35, 37 to 39, 41, 43, 46, 53, 55, 60, 61, and 64 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.
In claim 33, line 4 and in claim 64, line 6, “at least one of a lane change request” is apparently grammatically incorrect in the claim context, and should (now) apparently read, “a lane change request”.
In claim 33, lines 6ff, and in claim 64, lines 8ff, “the first reason from a set of reasons including . . .” is indefinite in the claim context because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed, within the set, by the (open-ended “including” language defining the set within the) claim. That is, the metes and bounds of the “set” cannot be determined with reasonable certainty1, with the reasons in the set apparently including anything. See MPEP 2173.05(h)2. Applicant may overcome this portion of the rejection by changing, “the first reason from a set of reasons including . . .” to “the first reason from a set of reasons consisting of
In claim 33, line 20, and in claim 64, line 22, “lane changes indicated as being required by the traffic law” as part of the prioritization order of the set of reasons is indefinite and ambiguous in the claim context, since the set includes (per line 7 in claim 33 or per line 9 in claim 64), as a reason, “a maneuver required by a traffic law”, and it is unclear whether the lane changes required by the traffic law are meant to be the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the maneuver(s) required by the traffic law, and what any intended differences by maneuvers and lane changes might possibly be or require, in the claim context. Applicant may resolve this ambiguity by changing (in line 7 of claim 33 or in line 9 of claim 64) “a maneuver required by a traffic law” to, “a lane change required by a traffic law”, if such be applicant’s intent.
In claim 34, lines 4 and 7 (two occurrences), “based on the reason” has insufficient antecedent basis (e.g., since there are now in claim 33 a “first reason” and a “second reason”), and could be changed to read, “based on the first reason and the second reason”, if such be applicant’s intent.
In claim 46, line 10, “the UE” has insufficient antecedent basis, e.g., since claim 33 recites first, second, and third UEs. (The examiner is not entirely sure which US would be correct in this context of claim 46.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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 33 to 35, 37 to 39, 41, 43, 46, 53, 55, 60, 61, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Korea, 1020170053880 A; EPO and KIPO machine translations provided previously) in view of Phan et al. (2021/0251023; claiming the benefit of provisional application 62/741,640[3], filed on Oct. 5, 2018 for the subject matter relied on herein by the examiner) and Yoon (2017/0345310).
Kim et al. (KR, ‘880) reveals:
per claim 33, a method of wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) associated with a remote vehicle (RV) [e.g., by the (multiple) vehicle-mounted vehicle driving assistance units (100) in FIGS. 3, 24, etc. of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880); e.g., paragraphs [0226], etc.], comprising:
receiving a [e.g., paragraphs [0008], [0016], [0038], etc., FIGS. 3 (see 500, 600, 610), 10, 16, 17, 19 to 21, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)] comprising at least one of a lane change request from a second UE associated with a vehicle [e.g., the received request for cooperation in changing lanes at S301 in FIG. 17 and paragraph [0147] of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), wherein (as indicated elsewhere in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)) the message may include a lane change candidate location 200 that determines the lane change location 250, and obviously reserves the 4m space which increases to 10m under the cooperative lane change control in FIGS. 11, 20, etc. and by which vehicles are warned about the confirmed lane change position 250, wherein the “lane change time” (paragraph [0143]) is transmitted to at least one adjacent vehicle; e.g., paragraphs [0119], [0120], [0124], [0127], [0142], [0143], [0155], etc.],
receiving a second message from a third UE [e.g., obviously included in the vehicle 524 in FIG. 19 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)] with a conflicting lane change request, [e.g., paragraphs [0152], etc., FIGS. 19, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)],
transmitting a V2X transmission with a response to the first message in the beamformed V2X signal, wherein the response accepts or rejects the lane change request [e.g., at S305, S307, etc. in FIG. 17 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880); e.g., paragraphs [0149] to [0154], etc., where communication between vehicles 521, 524 may be relayed, e.g., obviously using acceptance or rejection message (response message from vehicle 700) as at paragraph [0123]; e.g., paragraphs [0118], [0152], etc.]
Kim et al. (KR, ‘880) may not expressly reveal that the method (or apparatus) is performed at/with user equipment (UE), the remote vehicle (RV), etc. although the examiner understands that these limitations would have been implicit in or obvious from the teachings of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), even without further teaching. Kim et al. (KR, ‘880) also may not reveal that the messages comprise the claimed indication of the reasons for the lane change request, the set of reasons, or that the response is based on the reasons indicated and the prioritization order, or that the messages are beamformed/directional, although the examiner understands some of these limitations are indefinite.
However, in the context/field of improved connection establishment for vehicles used in lane-merging/changing cases (FIG. 2B) through which communication by broadcast, unicast, etc. is facilitated (FIG. 4), Phan et al. (‘023) teaches that both the vehicle initiating the lane change (120) and the vehicle(s) involved in the lane change (122) may be provided with/as “user equipment (UE)” such as a user device, user terminal, terminal device, mobile termination, subscriber unit, mobile station, remote terminal, access terminal, etc. (paragraph [0027]), wherein the UE typically refers to a portable computing device that includes wireless mobile communication devices operating with or without a subscriber identification module (SIM), including, but not limited to, the following types of devices: a mobile station (mobile phone), smartphone, personal digital assistant (PDA), handset, device using a wireless modem (alarm or measurement device, etc.), laptop and/or touch screen computer, tablet, game console, notebook, vehicular device, and multimedia device (paragraph [0027]), and wherein the transmission may be effected by 5G MIMO multi-antenna [obviously directional and beamformed4 as is conventional for 5G] transmission techniques (e.g., paragraph [0017]) and may include (in the context of the lane-switching scenario; FIG. 2B) the exchange of Basic Safety Messages between the UEs 120, 122 (e.g., paragraphs [0056], [0068], etc.)
Moreover, in the context/field of an improved control of lane changing when communication between vehicles is available, Yoon (‘310) teaches that priority should be considered when controlling the lane changes, wherein priority is determined e.g., based on the reason of the lane change having the higher priority among the ego vehicle and the object vehicle (paragraph [0029]) such as (in order of priority, for four specified reasons), i) a lane change due to no lane, ii) a lane change for a right turn or a left turn, or iii) normal lane change, and in the case that the reasons have the same priority (e.g., for normal lane changes), then also determining priority based additionally on iv) the accessibility of the target road (giving priority to the vehicle which is closer to the center of the target road/lane than the other) and/or to a join point.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Kim et al. (KR, ‘880) driver assistance apparatus and vehicle so that each of the vehicles initiating or involved in the lane change would have been predictably provided with user equipment (UE) for communicating with the other involved vehicle(s), as taught by Phan et al. (‘023), in order to facilitate e.g., 5G (directional) communication by (e.g., broadcast,) unicast, etc. between the vehicles with the use of Basic Safety Messages (BSM) exchanged between the vehicles, as taught by Phan et al. (‘023), with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use known techniques to reliably communicate information including safety information where the connection can be set up fast, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Kim et al. (KR, ‘880) driver assistance apparatus and vehicle so that, when two vehicles (521, 524) in FIG. 19 were attempting to change lanes to the lane change candidate location, a reason for the lane change of each vehicle, including in order of priority i) a lane change due to no lane (indicating e.g., in the vehicle driving assistance device in FIG. 1 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880) a reason for lane changes required by law), ii) a lane change for a right turn or a left turn (similarly indicating strategic lane changes for route purposes), iii) a normal lane change5 (indicating cooperative lane changes to make room for other vehicle traffic, as detailed below), and additionally iv) target road accessibility (for determining lane change priority) when the reason priorities for the normal lane change of each vehicle (as part of a tactical lane change indicated to pass slower vehicles) are the same, etc., as taught by Yoon (‘310), would have been communicated between vehicles and considered for determining which vehicle should change lanes (first) with priority, as taught by Yoon (‘310), with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use reasons for the lane change as another technique for establishing cooperation and/or priorities for the lane change in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Kim et al. (KR, ‘880) driver assistance apparatus and vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 33, a method of wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) associated with a remote vehicle (RV) [e.g., e.g., as taught by the UEs 122, 120, etc. in Phan et al. (‘023), and by the (multiple) vehicle-mounted vehicle driving assistance units (100) in FIGS. 3, 24, etc. of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880); e.g., paragraphs [0226], etc.], comprising:
receiving a beamformed [e.g., the conventional/obvious beamforming in the 5G communication taught by Phan et al. (‘023)] vehicle-to-everything (V2X) signal including a first message [e.g., paragraphs [0008], [0016], [0038], etc., FIGS. 3 (see 500, 600, 610), 10, 16, 17, 19 to 21, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)] comprising at least one of a lane change request [e.g., the received request for cooperation in changing lanes at S301 in FIG. 17 and paragraph [0147] of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), wherein (as indicated elsewhere in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)) the message may include a lane change candidate location 200 that determines the lane change location 250, and obviously reserves the 4m space which increases to 10m under the cooperative lane change control in FIGS. 11, 20, etc. and by which vehicles are warned about the confirmed lane change position 250, wherein the “lane change time” (paragraph [0143]) is transmitted to at least one adjacent vehicle; e.g., paragraphs [0119], [0120], [0124], [0127], [0142], [0143], [0155], etc.] from a second UE [e.g., as taught by the UEs 122, 120, etc. in Phan et al. (‘023)] associated with a vehicle [e.g., in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)], wherein the first message comprises an indication of a first reason for the lane change request [e.g., the reason(s) for the lane change communicated between (e.g., cooperating) vehicles in paragraphs [0029] to [0034] of Yoon (‘310) for the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle, wherein the reason(s) may include i) a lane change due to no lane, ii) a lane change for a right turn or a left turn, and iii) a normal lane change, where the normal lane change may be a change for a passing, iv) a change for returning after the passing, a change for a driving using the target road, and the like], wherein the indication indicates the first reason from a set of reasons including a maneuver required by a traffic law [e.g., as taught by Yoon (‘310), where a lane change (e.g., of a first vehicle, etc.) due to no lane is obviously indicated and is a lane change required by traffic law (e.g., it obviously would have been illegal to drive in no lane, or outside of a lane, on the road)], a strategic lane change for a route purpose [e.g., in Yoon (‘310), a lane change (e.g., of a second vehicle, etc.) for a right turn or a left turn is obviously indicated, which is obviously a strategic lane change for route purposes when the route obviously includes right and/or left turns, etc.], a cooperative lane change to make room for other vehicle traffic [e.g. in Yoon (‘310), a normal lane change (e.g., of a second vehicle, etc.), and where the normal lane change that is obviously indicated may be a change for a passing, a change for a driving using the target road, and the like, where the normal lane change would have obviously made room for other traffic in the lane that was vacated by the normal lane change, and the passing car obviously would have cooperated both with the car being passed, e.g., to maintain a safe distance from the car being passed, and with other car(s) as described in conjunction with FIG 2C in Yoon (‘310), in order to not collide], or a tactical lane change to pass a slower vehicle [e.g., in Yoon (‘310), the lane change for returning after passing (paragraph [0033]) indicated as a particular one of the normal lane changes would have obviously been a tactical lane change to complete the passing of a slower vehicle];
receiving a second message [e.g., as shown for example in FIG. 19 and others in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), when two requests may be received at e.g., approximately the same time] from a third UE [e.g., obviously included in the vehicle 524 in FIG. 19 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), as taught at 120, 122 by Phan et al. (‘023)] with a conflicting lane change request that conflicts with the lane change request [e.g., paragraphs [0152], etc., FIGS. 19, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)], wherein the second message indicates a second reason[e.g., the reason(s) for the lane change communicated between each of the (e.g., cooperating) vehicles in paragraphs [0029] to [0034] of Yoon (‘310) for the other of the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle, wherein the reason(s) may include i) a lane change due to no lane, ii) a lane change for a right turn or a left turn, and iii) a normal lane change, where the normal lane change may be a change for a passing, iv) a change for returning after the passing, a change for a driving using the target road, and the like], wherein the second reason is indicated from the set of reasons [e.g., in Yoon (‘310), a lane change due to no lane, or for a right turn or a left turn or a route, or for a normal lane change for passing, etc. or a normal lane change for returning from passing based on accessibility, etc.]; and
transmitting a V2X transmission with a response to the first message in the beamformed V2X signal, wherein the response accepts or rejects the lane change request [e.g., at S305, S307, etc. in FIG. 17 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880); e.g., paragraphs [0149] to [0154], etc., where communication between vehicles 521, 524 may be relayed, e.g., obviously using acceptance or rejection message (response message from vehicle 700) as at paragraph [0123]; e.g., paragraphs [0118], [0152], etc.] based at least in part on a comparison of the first reason indicated in the first message and the second reason indicated in the second message and a prioritization order among the set of reasons [e.g., based on the priority order established by (comparing) the reasons in the messages of each vehicle, as taught by Yoon (‘310), e.g., at paragraphs [0029] to [0034]] in which lane changes indicated as being required by traffic law are prioritized over strategic lane changes indicated as being for route purposes [e.g., as taught by Yoon (‘310), where a lane change (e.g., of a first vehicle, etc.) indicated as due to no lane (e.g., it obviously would have been illegal to drive in no lane, on the road) is prioritized over a lane change (e.g., of a second vehicle, etc.) indicated for a right turn or a left turn; e.g., paragraphs [0032], [0033], etc.], the strategic lane changes are prioritized over cooperative lane changes indicated to make room for other vehicle traffic [e.g., as taught by Yoon (‘310), where a lane change for a right turn or a left turn (e.g., of a first vehicle, etc.) is prioritized over an indicated normal lane change (e.g., of a second vehicle, etc.), and where the normal lane change may be a lane change for a passing, a lane change for returning after the passing, a lane change for a driving using the target road, and the like, where the normal lane change would have obviously made room for other traffic in the lane that was vacated by the normal lane change, and the passing car (in the normal lane change) obviously would have cooperated both with the car being passed, e.g., to maintain a safe distance from the car being passed and not collide with it, and with other car(s) as described in conjunction with FIG 2C in Yoon (‘310)], and the cooperative lane changes are prioritized over tactical lane changes indicated to pass slower vehicles [e.g., in an obvious situation (from the teachings of Yoon (‘310) at paragraphs [0030], [0033], [0047], etc.) similar to that shown in FIG. 2A of Yoon (‘310) where the two vehicles (A and B) in communication (e.g., paragraphs [0029], [0030], etc.) would have obviously each been making normal lane changes (e.g., both to the center lane) that had the same priority, and therefore the priority vehicle would have been determined based on (for example) accessibility to the target road (e.g., which vehicle is closer to the center of the center/target lane/road, e.g., the vehicle B in FIG. 2A); and in particular, for example where one vehicle (e.g., a first vehicle, A, etc. in FIG. 2A) is returning to the center lane after passing (e.g., after passing another vehicle C, as sketched by the examiner in the footnote below/on the next page6, in a modified version of FIG. 2A in Yoon (‘310)), and another vehicle (e.g., a second vehicle, B, etc.) is making a lane change to the center in order to pass another vehicle (e.g., the vehicle D in the examiner’s sketch), and the vehicle (B) that is changing lanes in order to pass is closer to the center of the center/target lane road than the vehicle (A), as shown in FIG. 2A, and cooperates with the vehicle (A) returning from passing such that such that the vehicle (B) continues to pass with priority (paragraph [0047]) and subsequently the vehicle (A) secures the safety distance (relative to the vehicle B) by deceleration or acceleration (paragraph [0048]) and performs its lane change after the lane change of the vehicle (B); in this scenario, the lane change for passing by the vehicle (B) would have obviously been indicated as a cooperative lane change (e.g., A cooperates with B, etc.) to make room for other vehicle traffic (e.g., the vehicle E in back of the vehicle B in the examiner’s sketch) which can subsequently occupy the positions in the lane vacated by the vehicle B in passing), and the lane change for returning after passing of the vehicle (A) would have obviously been indicated as a tactical lane change to increase speed and/or complete the passing of a slower vehicle];
per claim 34, depending from claim 33, wherein the first UE [e.g., obviously included in one of the lane changing vehicles in FIG. 19 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), as taught at 120, 122 by Phan et al. (‘023)] accepts the lane change request when the conflicting lane change request has a lower priority than the lane change request based on the reason [e.g., obviously based on “timing of the request, etc.”, as taught at paragraph [0152] in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), such as obviously first-come-first serve (with the second request obviously having lower priority); and/or based on the reason(s) for the lane change(s) as taught by Yoon (‘310) with the higher priority lane change message/request in Yoon (‘310) continuing and the lower priority lane change message/request being initially not continued (rejected) and then subsequently performed e.g., after securing the safety distance (by acceleration or deceleration) with the priority vehicle]; and
wherein the first UE [e.g., obviously included in one of the lane changing vehicles in FIG. 19 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), as taught at 120, 122 by Phan et al. (‘023)] rejects the lane change request when the conflicting lane change request has a higher priority than the lane change request based on the reason [e.g., obviously based on “timing of the request, etc.”, as taught at paragraph [0152] in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), such as obviously first-come-first serve (with the second request obviously having lower priority); and/or based on the reason(s) for the lane change(s) as taught by Yoon (‘310) with the higher priority lane change message/request in Yoon (‘310) continuing and the lower priority lane change message/request being initially not continued (rejected) and then subsequently performed e.g., after securing the safety distance (by acceleration or deceleration) with the priority vehicle];
per claim 35, depending from claim 33, wherein the response rejects the lane change request [e.g., at S313, S315, etc. in FIG. 17 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)], and wherein the response indicates a rejection reason for a rejection of the lane change request [e.g., which is implicit/obvious in both the decision not to cooperate (“I am refusing the request because I have decided to not cooperate”; paragraph [0152]) and from the safety determination (or driver decision) at S305 in FIG. 17 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880); e.g., paragraph [0150]];
per claim 37, depending from claim 33, wherein the first UE transmits the response rejecting the lane change request [e.g., when the UE deems that the lane change is not safe, as at paragraph [0151] in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)];
per claim 38, depending from claim 33, wherein the response accepts the lane change request and indicates a vehicle maneuver of the RV associated with the first UE [e.g., where each vehicle (e.g., 521, 522, 524, 700, etc.) in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880) obviously includes a UE as taught at 120, 122 by Phan et al. (‘023)] in response to the lane change request or the lane space reservation [e.g., at S305, yes, and at S307, S309 in FIG. 17 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)];
per claim 39, depending from claim 33, further comprising:
transmitting a lane space reservation based on the lane change request from the second UE [e.g., the lane change cooperation request message, transmitted at S105 in FIG. 5 through the communication unit [120] to the other vehicles (e.g., 511, 512 in FIG. 10), as a relay (e.g., paragraphs [0118], [0152], etc.), wherein the message may include a lane change candidate location 200 that determines the lane change location 250, and obviously reserves the 4m space which increases to 10m under the cooperative lane change control in FIGS. 12, 20, etc. and by which vehicles are warned about the confirmed lane change position 250, wherein the “lane change time” (paragraph [0143]) is transmitted to at least one adjacent vehicle; e.g., paragraphs [0118], [0119], [0120], [0124], [0127], [0142], [0143], [0152], [0155], etc.]; and
monitoring for at least one response to the lane space reservation prior to transmitting, to the second UE, the response to the first message [e.g., obviously in the relaying of the communication (from other vehicles) at paragraphs [0018], [0152], etc. and in FIGS.9, 16, 19, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)];
per claim 41, depending from claim 39, wherein the first lane change request is in a beamformed transmission [e.g., cf. FIGS. 10, 18, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880); and using the unicast (D2D) transmission as taught by Phan et al. (‘023)] in a first direction [e.g., in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880) to obviously indicate to different adjacent vehicles (e.g., 511, 512, 521, 522, 531, 532, 541, etc.) different locations of the candidate lane change locations 200 and/or lane change locations 250; and using the unicast (D2D) transmission as taught by Phan et al. (‘023)] based on a space indicated in the lane change request, and wherein the lane space reservation is transmitted using a second directional transmission in a second direction [e.g., in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880) to obviously indicate to different adjacent vehicles (e.g., 511, 512, 521, 522, 531, 532, 541, etc.) different locations of the candidate lane change locations 200 and/or lane change locations 250; and using the unicast (D2D) transmission as taught by Phan et al. (‘023)];
per claim 43, depending from claim 39, wherein the lane space reservation comprises an announcement message indicating the lane space reservation [e.g., announcing the location (200, 250) of the lane change, in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)];
per claim 46, depending from claim 33, wherein the first message comprises the lane change request [e.g., at S105, S301, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)], and wherein, in addition to the indication of the first reason [e.g., the reason for the lane change, as taught by Yoon (‘310)], the lane change request further indicates at least one of:
a priority for the lane change request [e.g., obviously based on “timing of the request, etc.”, as taught at paragraph [0152] in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), such as obviously first-come-first serve (with the first request obviously having higher priority)];
a source location prior to a lane change and a destination location following the lane change,
a start time for the lane change [e.g., the “lane change time” at paragraph [0143] in Kim et al. KR, ‘880)],
an end time for the lane change [e.g., the “lane change time” at paragraph [0143] in Kim et al. KR, ‘880)],
a target lane space reservation [e.g., the lane change candidate location 200 included in the lane change cooperation request message, at paragraphs [0120], [0121], [0148], etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)],
a movement for the RV to facilitate the lane change requested by the UE,
an identification of a lane change request message with an additional lane change request from an additional UE, or
a time window for receiving the response to the lane change request;
per claim 53, depending from claim 39, wherein the lane space reservation further indicates at least one of:
a time for the lane space reservation [e.g., the “lane change time” at paragraph [0143] in Kim et al. KR, ‘880)],
a reserved space [e.g., 200, 250 in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)],
a priority for the lane space reservation [e.g., obviously based on “timing of the request, etc.”, as taught at paragraph [0152] in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), such as obviously first-come-first serve (with the first request obviously having higher priority)], or
a time window for the response to the lane space reservation;
per claim 55, depending from claim 33, wherein the lane space reservation indicates the reserved space [e.g., 200, 250 in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)] using at least one of:
geographic coordinates,
a timing series of locations representing a trajectory,
a location of the second UE and a speed of the second UE,
a relative distance from the second UE [e.g., as shown in FIGS. 18 to 23 in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)],
an acceleration instruction for the first UE [e.g., paragraph [0127] in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), “the processor 170 causes the first adjacent vehicle 511 to slow down and the second adjacent vehicle 512 to increase the speed, so that the first adjacent vehicle 511 [slows down] and the second adjacent vehicle 512 increase the speed. When the distance between adjacent vehicles 512 increases, it can be judged as acceptance feedback for lane change cooperation”], or
a deceleration instruction for the first UE [e.g., paragraph [0127] in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), “the processor 170 causes the first adjacent vehicle 511 to slow down and the second adjacent vehicle 512 to increase the speed, so that the first adjacent vehicle 511 [slows down] and the second adjacent vehicle 512 increase the speed. When the distance between adjacent vehicles 512 increases, it can be judged as acceptance feedback for lane change cooperation”];
per claim 60, depending from claim 33, wherein the lane change request comprises at least part of content of a basic safety message (BSM) or is combined with the BSM [e.g., as taught by the Basic Safety Messages (BSM) used in the lane-switching scenario in Phan et al. (‘023) at paragraphs [0056], [0068], etc.; and as taught by the messages used for safe lane changing [e.g., having digital “1s” and “0s” which are the digital parts of BSMs) in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)];
per claim 61, depending from claim 33, further comprising:
refraining from sending a second lane change request that conflicts with the lane change request [e.g., as shown by the flowchart in FIG. 17 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)];
per claim 64, an apparatus [e.g., FIGS. 3, 24, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)] for wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) associated with a remote vehicle (RV) [e.g., 120, 122, etc. as taught by Phan et al. (‘023); and FIGS. 3, 24, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)], comprising:
memory [e.g., 140, 730, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880); and FIGS. 7 and 8 in Phan et al. (‘023)]; and
at least one processor [e.g., 170, 770, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880); and FIGS. 7 and 8 in Phan et al. (‘023)] coupled to the memory and configured to:
receive a beamformed [e.g., the conventional/obvious beamforming in the 5G communication taught by Phan et al. (‘023)] vehicle-to-everything (V2X) signal including a first message [e.g., paragraphs [0008], [0016], [0038], etc., FIGS. 3 (see 500, 600, 610), 10, 16, 17, 19 to 21, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)] comprising at least one of a lane change request from a second UE [e.g., as taught by the UEs 122, 120, etc. in Phan et al. (‘023)] associated with a vehicle [e.g., in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)], wherein the first message comprises an indication of a first reason for the lane change request [e.g., the reason(s) for the lane change communicated between each of the (e.g., cooperating) vehicles in paragraphs [0029] to [0034] of Yoon (‘310) for the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle, wherein the reason(s) may include a lane change due to no lane, a lane change for a right turn or a left turn, and a normal lane change, where the normal lane change may be a change for a passing, a change for returning after the passing, a change for a driving using the target road, and the like], wherein the indication indicates the first reason from a set of reasons including a maneuver required by a traffic law [e.g., as taught by Yoon (‘310), where a lane change (e.g., of a first vehicle, etc.) due to no lane is obviously indicated and is a lane change required by traffic law (e.g., it obviously would have been illegal to drive in no lane, or outside of a lane, on the road)], a strategic lane change for a route purpose [e.g., in Yoon (‘310), a lane change (e.g., of a second vehicle, etc.) for a right turn or a left turn is obviously indicated, which is obviously a strategic lane change for route purposes when the route obviously includes right and/or left turns, etc.], a cooperative lane change to make room for other vehicle traffic [e.g. in Yoon (‘310), a normal lane change (e.g., of a second vehicle, etc.), and where the normal lane change that is obviously indicated may be a change for a passing, a change for a driving using the target road, and the like, where the normal lane change would have obviously made room for other traffic in the lane that was vacated by the normal lane change, and the passing car obviously would have cooperated both with the car being passed, e.g., to maintain a safe distance from the car being passed, and with other car(s) as described in conjunction with FIG 2C in Yoon (‘310), in order to not collide], or a tactical lane change to pass a slower vehicle [e.g., in Yoon (‘310), the lane change for returning after passing (paragraph [0033]) indicated as a particular one of the normal lane changes would have obviously been a tactical lane change to complete the passing of a slower vehicle];
receive a second message [e.g., as shown for example in FIG. 19 and others in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), when two requests may be received at e.g., approximately the same time] from a third UE [e.g., obviously included in the vehicle 524 in FIG. 19 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880), as taught at 120, 122 by Phan et al. (‘023)] with a conflicting lane change request that conflicts with the lane change request [e.g., paragraphs [0152], etc., FIGS. 19, etc. in Kim et al. (KR, ‘880)], wherein the second message indicates a second reason [e.g., the reason(s) for the lane change communicated between each of the (e.g., cooperating) vehicles in paragraphs [0029] to [0034] of Yoon (‘310) for the other of the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle, wherein the reason(s) may include a lane change due to no lane, a lane change for a right turn or a left turn, and a normal lane change, where the normal lane change may be a change for a passing, a change for returning after the passing, a change for a driving using the target road, and the like], wherein the second reason is indicated from the set of reasons [e.g., in Yoon (‘310), a lane change due to no lane, or for a right turn or a left turn or a route, or for a normal lane change for passing, etc. or a normal lane change for returning from passing based on accessibility, etc.] and
transmit a V2X transmission with a response to the first message in the beamformed V2X signal, wherein the response accepts or rejects the lane change request [e.g., at S305, S307, etc. in FIG. 17 of Kim et al. (KR, ‘880); e.g., paragraphs [0149] to [0154], etc., where communication between vehicles 521, 524 may be relayed, e.g., obviously using acceptance or rejection message (response message from vehicle 700) as at paragraph [0123]; e.g., paragraphs [0118], [0152], etc.] based at least in part on a comparison of the first reason indicated in the first message and the second reason indicated in the second message and a prioritization order among the set of reasons [e.g., based on the priority order established by (comparing) the reasons in the messages of each vehicle, as taught by Yoon (‘310), e.g., at paragraphs [0029] to [0034]] in which lane changes indicated as being required by traffic law are prioritized over strategic lane changes indicated as being for route purposes [e.g., as taught by Yoon (‘310), where a lane change (e.g., of a first vehicle, etc.) indicated as due to no lane (e.g., it obviously would have been illegal to drive in no lane, on the road) is prioritized over a lane change (e.g., of a second vehicle, etc.) indicated for a right turn or a left turn; e.g., paragraphs [0032], [0033], etc.], the strategic lane changes are prioritized over cooperative lane changes indicated to make room for other vehicle traffic [e.g., as taught by Yoon (‘310), where a lane change for a right turn or a left turn (e.g., of a first vehicle, etc.) is prioritized over an indicated normal lane change (e.g., of a second vehicle, etc.), and where the normal lane change may be a lane change for a passing, a lane change for returning after the passing, a lane change for a driving using the target road, and the like, where the normal lane change would have obviously made room for other traffic in the lane that was vacated by the normal lane change, and the passing car (in the normal lane change) obviously would have cooperated both with the car being passed, e.g., to maintain a safe distance from the car being passed and not collide with it, and with other car(s) as described in conjunction with FIG 2C in Yoon (‘310)], and the cooperative lane changes are prioritized over tactical lane changes indicated to pass slower vehicles [e.g., in an obvious situation (from the teachings of Yoon (‘310) at paragraphs [0030], [0033], [0047], etc.) similar to that shown in FIG. 2A of Yoon (‘310) where the two vehicles (A and B) in communication (e.g., paragraphs [0029], [0030], etc.) would have obviously each been making normal lane changes (e.g., both to the center lane) that had the same priority, and therefore the priority vehicle would have been determined based on (for example) accessibility to the target road (e.g., which vehicle is closer to the center of the center/target lane/road, e.g., the vehicle B in FIG. 2A); and in particular, for example where one vehicle (e.g., a first vehicle, A, etc. in FIG. 2A) is returning to the center lane after passing (e.g., after passing another vehicle C, as sketched by the examiner in the footnote below/on the next page7, in a modified version of FIG. 2A in Yoon (‘310)), and another vehicle (e.g., a second vehicle, B, etc.) is making a lane change to the center in order to pass another vehicle (e.g., the vehicle D in the examiner’s sketch), and the vehicle (B) that is changing lanes in order to pass is closer to the center of the center/target lane road than the vehicle (A), as shown in FIG. 2A, and cooperates with the vehicle (A) returning from passing such that such that the vehicle (B) continues to pass with priority (paragraph [0047]) and subsequently the vehicle (A) secures the safety distance (relative to the vehicle B) by deceleration or acceleration (paragraph [0048]) and performs its lane change after the lane change of the vehicle (B); in this scenario, the lane change for passing by the vehicle (B) would have obviously been indicated as a cooperative lane change (e.g., A cooperates with B, etc.) to make room for other vehicle traffic (e.g., the vehicle E in back of the vehicle B in the examiner’s sketch) which can subsequently occupy the positions in the lane vacated by the vehicle B in passing), and the lane change for returning after passing of the vehicle (A) would have obviously been indicated as a tactical lane change to increase speed and/or complete the passing of a slower vehicle];
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 to 6, 16, 17, 21, 22, 26 to 28, 31, and 66 to 69 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-7876. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
2 Quoting the MPEP: “A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022)”.
3 A complete copy of this application, as filed at the USPTO, was previously cited as NPL on the previous PTO-892 dated 16 April 2024 and is used by the examiner to establish the effectively filed date of Phan et al. (‘023) under 35 U.S.C 102(d) to be Oct. 5, 2018 for the subject matter relied on by the examiner.
4 See the Wikipedia article, the 2018 Qualcomm 5G NR based C-V2X paper, and the 2018 IEEE paper, all cited previously, in support of the conventional beamforming in 5G communication.
5 As indicated at published paragraph [0033] of Yoon (‘310), “Here, the normal lane change may be a change for a passing, a change for returning after the passing, a change for a driving using the target road, and the like.”
6 The examiner below/on the next page modifies FIG. 2A in Yoon (‘310) to show