DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 6, 14, 21, 27, 34, and 38 have been amended.
Claims 7, 11, 19, 20, 23, 37, and 40 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-18, 21, 22, 24-36, 38, and 39 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-18, 21, 22, 24-31, 33-36, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa et al. (WO2019239505), hereafter Osawa, in view of Uchiyama (EP3373503A1) and Zalewski et al. (US20170090036A1), hereafter Zalewski.
Regarding claims 1 and 12-14,
Osawa discloses a method (Fig. 3-4) an apparatus (Fig. 11, UE 20) for wireless communication at a first wireless device (Fig. 2, Source) comprising at least one memory (1002), at least one transceiver (1004), and at least one processor (1001), communicatively connected to the at least one memory and the at least one transceiver, the at least one processor configured to detect an object in an environment that obstructs synchronization with a network (Fig. 2; paragraph 20-23; detecting disturbance state/blockage between Source and Destination based on SLSS/sidelink sync signal) and transmit, via the at least one transceiver, to at least one second wireless device (Fig. 11, base station 10), a message indicating the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network (paragraph 46; notify base station of the detection of disturbance state) and receiving a synchronization sisgnal from the at least one second wireless device in response to the message (paragraph 21; re-establish synchronization after interference detection).
Osawa discloses use of RSRP (paragraph 22, 34) but fails to expressly disclose the message includes information corresponding to at least one synchronization source, SyncRef UE, RSU or base station, proximate the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network included in a data structure indicating the object included in a data structure indicating the object and further comprising at least one other IE indicating a set of vehicle or non-vehicle specific characteristics associated with the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network.
Uchiyama discloses analogous art disclosing V2X synchronization in a shielded (i.e. obstructed) area using several types of synchronization source signals including signaling information corresponding to at least one synchronization source, SyncRef UE, RSU or base station, proximate the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network (Fig. 1, 6-8, 10; paragraph 49-57; identifying various synchronization source signals including near an obstructed/shielded area, i.e. tunnel) included in a data structure indicating the object (Fig. 7, S420, S428; paragraph 58; eNB instructs the UE through SIB/DCI, i.e. data structure, indicating proximity and direction relative to an obstruction/tunnel) further comprising at least one other IE indicating a set of vehicle and non-vehicle specific characteristics associated with the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network (paragraph 58-59; instructions may further include priority table, changeover instruction, lane ID, etc. corresponding to vehicle & non-vehicle specific characteristics related to the obstructing object/tunnel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Osawa by signaling information corresponding to at least one synchronization source, SyncRef UE, RSU or base station, proximate the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network included in a data structure indicating the object included in a data structure indicating the object and further comprising at least one other IE indicating a set of vehicle and non-vehicle specific characteristics associated with the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network, as shown by Uchiyama, thereby enabling dynamic synchronization near the border between obstructed and unobstructed areas.
Both Osawa and Uchiyama disclose obstruction to synchronization, as shown above, but do not expressly disclose non-vehicle specific characteristics comprises jammer data.
Zalewski discloses analogous art for verifying plausibility of GNSS position signals (Title) including jammer data as non-vehicle specific characteristics affecting synchronization in V2X (paragraphs 3-9; GNSS/GPS jammer mask the position signals of GNSS as an obstruction to synchronization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Osawa and Uchiyama by providing jammer data as non-vehicle specific characteristics affecting synchronization, as shown in Zalewski, thereby enabling the verification of GNSS positioning in the presence of artificial jammers to allow synchronization in V2X environments.
Regarding claims 21, 24-26, 28, 34, and 36,
Osawa discloses a method (Fig. 3-4) and apparatus (Fig. 11, base station 20) for wireless communication at a second wireless device comprising a memory (1002) at least one transceiver (1004) and at least one processor (1001) communicatively connected to the memory and the at least one transceiver, the at least one processor configured to receive, from a first wireless device (Fig. 2, Source), a message indicating an object that obstructs synchronization with a network (paragraph 46; UE notifies base station of the detection of disturbance state) and perform a synchronization mitigation action in response to receiving the message indicating the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network (paragraph 47; base station transmits a cause (i.e. blockage) for relay to another UE performing sidelink communication with the Source UE) and transmit, to the first wireless device in response to the message, a synchronization signal as synchronization source (paragraph 21; re-establish synchronization after interference detection).
Osawa discloses use of RSRP (paragraph 22, 34) but fails to expressly disclose the message includes information corresponding to at least one synchronization source, SyncRef UE, RSU or base station, proximate the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network included in a data structure indicating the object included in a data structure indicating the object and further comprising at least one other IE indicating a set of vehicle or non-vehicle specific characteristics associated with the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network.
Uchiyama discloses analogous art disclosing V2X synchronization in a shielded (i.e. obstructed) area using several types of synchronization source signals including signaling information corresponding to at least one synchronization source, SyncRef UE, RSU or base station, proximate the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network (Fig. 1, 6-8, 10; paragraph 49-57; identifying various synchronization source signals including near an obstructed/shielded area, i.e. tunnel) included in a data structure indicating the object (Fig. 7, S420, S428; paragraph 58; eNB instructs the UE through SIB/DCI, i.e. data structure, indicating proximity and direction relative to an obstruction/tunnel) further comprising at least one other IE indicating a set of vehicle or non-vehicle specific characteristics associated with the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network (paragraph 58-59; instructions may further include priority table, changeover instruction, lane ID, etc. corresponding to vehicle & non-vehicle specific characteristics related to the obstructing object/tunnel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Osawa by signaling information corresponding to at least one synchronization source, SyncRef UE, RSU or base station, proximate the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network included in a data structure indicating the object included in a data structure indicating the object and further comprising at least one other IE indicating a set of vehicle or non-vehicle specific characteristics with the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network, as shown by Uchiyama, thereby enabling dynamic synchronization near the border between obstructed and unobstructed areas.
Both Osawa and Uchiyama disclose obstruction to synchronization, as shown above, but do not expressly disclose non-vehicle specific characteristics comprises jammer data.
Zalewski discloses analogous art for verifying plausibility of GNSS position signals (Title) including jammer data as non-vehicle specific characteristics affecting synchronization in V2X (paragraphs 3-9; GNSS/GPS jammer mask the position signals of GNSS as an obstruction to synchronization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Osawa and Uchiyama by providing jammer data as non-vehicle specific characteristics affecting synchronization, as shown in Zalewski, thereby enabling the verification of GNSS positioning in the presence of artificial jammers to allow synchronization in V2X environments.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 15-18,
Osawa discloses onboard unit (OBU) including one or more sensors to detect the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network using the OBU (paragraph 23, 71; enter interference state when the sensor detects an object around the vehicle). As shown above, Osawa also discloses another/third device (base station) relays a cause of the blockage (paragraph 47) but fails to expressly disclose an indication that identifies the object in the environment that obstructs the synchronization with one or more sync sources of the network.
Uchiyama discloses an indication that identifies the object in the environment that obstructs the synchronization with one or more sync sources of the network (Fig. 1, 6-8, 10; paragraph 49-57; identifying various local/global synchronization source signals including near/in an obstructed/shielded area, i.e. tunnel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Osawa by providing an indication that identifies the object in the environment that obstructs the synchronization with one or more sync sources of the network, as shown by Uchiyama, thereby allowing anticipation of signal availability and minimizing the negative effects of signal loss.
Regarding claims 8, 10, 30, 31, and 33,
The combination of Osawa, Uchiyama, and Zalewski discloses the message comprises at least one information element (IE) corresponding to the object that obstructs the synchronization with the network, wherein the at least one IE comprises one or more detected characteristics of the object based at least on one of topography, geographic terrain, or one or more structures within the environment (Osawa: paragraph 32-33; MAC signaling; Uchiyama: Fig. 1, 6-8, 10; paragraph 49-57; identifying various local/global synchronization source signals including near/in an obstructed/shielded area, i.e. tunnel ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Osawa by providing information of detected characteristics of the object based at least on one of topography, geographic terrain, or one or more structures within the environment, as shown by Uchiyama, thereby allowing anticipation of signal availability and minimizing the negative effects of signal loss.
Regarding claims 22, 27, 29, 35, 38, and 39,
The combination of Osawa, Uchiyama, and Zalewski discloses to perform the synchronization mitigation action, the at least one processor is further configured to establish a synchronization connection with at least one synchronization source identified within the message before the second wireless device enters an environment having an obstructed synchronization with the network due to the object (i.e. Uchiyama; Fig. 6-8, paragraph 49-50; tunnel or underground passage). See motivation above.
Claims 9 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa, Uchiyama, and Zalewski, and further in view of Hormis et al. (US20200382208A1), hereafter Hormis.
Regarding claims 9 and 32,
The combination of Osawa, Uchiyama, and Zalewski does not expressly disclose the data transmitted from a misbehaving wireless device obstructs or interferes with the synchronization with the network.
Hormis discloses analogous art in wireless communications systems (Title) and C-V2X (paragraph 107) including interference by jamming devices in proximity to a wireless node (paragraph 48, 50, 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Osawa, Uchiyama, and Zalewski by detecting and mitigating interference from data transmitted from a misbehaving wireless device obstructs or interferes with the synchronization with the network, as shown by Hormis, in order to operate in a dynamic V2X environment with a variety of interfering items.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 11 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Osawa, Uchiyama, and Zalewski fail to disclose the newly-added limitation of receiving/transmitting a synchronization signal in response to the message, as in claims 1, 14, 21, and 34.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As now shown in the rejection, Osawa discloses re-establishing synchronization after interference detection that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as substantially equivalent to the steps of receiving/transmitting a synchronization signal in response to the message, as now claimed. Further, Uchiyama and Zalewski each disclose synchronization processes that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to establish/re-establish synchronization based on detected interference/jamming that temporarily obstructs synchronization. Therefore, the rejections based on the combination of Osawa, Uchiyama, and Zalewski are properly maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights