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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the instant specification, by paragraphs [0189] and [0190], supports the newly-added claimed limitations.
The examiner, however, disagrees.
The instant specification, by paragraph [0189], discloses that the base station transmits a warning message to surrounding vehicles. Paragraph [0189], however, fails to disclose that the warning message is a discovery request as specified in independent claims 1, 15, and 17.
The instant specification, by paragraph [0190], fails to disclose that the network is a base station which transmits a discovery request including information related to a second terminal to nearby terminals, in response to a cluster departure notification message, wherein said base station receives, from a first terminal, the cluster departure notification message based on that the second terminal departs from the cluster, as specified in independent claims 1, 15, and 17.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the instant specification, by paragraphs [0189] and [0190], fails to support the newly-added claimed limitations as specified in independent claims 1, 15, and 17.
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.
Claims 1-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, it recites “a discovery request including information related to the second terminal is transmitted from the base station to nearby terminals, in response to the cluster departure notification message”, wherein said base station is the one which receives, from a first terminal, a cluster departure notification message based on that the second terminal departs from the cluster.
Therefore, claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to independent claims 15, 17, dependent claims 2-13, and 14, they are rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
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.
Claims 1-10, 13-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldana (US 2020/0120458) in view of Brahmi (US 2016/0212596), and Akiyama (US 2007/0086399).
As to claim 1, Aldana discloses a method for managing a cluster, the method performed by a first terminal (in this instance, the claimed “a first terminal” reads on a cluster head, for example, a cluster head 904 in paragraph [0242]) included in the cluster and comprising: detecting, by the first terminal, mobility of a second terminal (see paragraphs [0242], [0246], [0250]); transmitting, by the first terminal, to the second terminal, a cluster join message based on the second terminal satisfying a clustering condition (in this instance, the claimed “a cluster join message” reads on invitation messages disclosed in paragraphs [0242], [0246], [0250], [1202]); transmitting, by the first terminal, to the second terminal, a cluster message (in this instance, the claimed “a cluster message” reads on cluster confirmation message disclosed in paragraph [0226]), wherein the cluster join message includes information for requesting to join the second terminal to the cluster (see paragraphs [1202]), and wherein the cluster message includes information related to the cluster (see paragraph [0226]).
Aldana fails to disclose detecting, by the first terminal, based on information related to the mobility of the second terminal and information related to mobility of a cluster, that the second terminal departs from the cluster; and transmitting, by the first terminal, to a base station, a cluster departure notification massage based on that the second terminal departs from the cluster. Brahmi discloses detecting, by a first terminal CH (see at least figure 1, cluster head 100-CH), based on information related to mobility of a second terminal CM and information related to mobility of a cluster, that the second terminal departs from a cluster (see paragraph [0043], wherein “the heading of the corresponding vehicle” reads on the claimed “information related to mobility of a second terminal CM”, and “an average heading determined for the cluster” reads on the claimed “information related to mobility of a cluster”; see also paragraph [0046]); and transmitting, by the first terminal, to a base station, a cluster departure notification massage based on that the second terminal departs from the cluster (see paragraph [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Brahmi to Aldana, in order to optimize channel allocation to the cluster (as suggested by Brahmi at paragraph [0044]).
The combination of Aldana and Brahmi fails to disclose a discovery request including information related to the second terminal is transmitted from the base station to nearby terminals, in response to the cluster departure notification message. Akiyama discloses a discovery request including information related to the second terminal is transmitted from a base station AP1 to nearby terminals, in response to an area departure notification message (see paragraphs [0050], [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Akiyama to the combination of Aldana and Brahmi, in order to yield predictable results such as quickly tracking vehicle locations.
As to claim 2, Aldana discloses the mobility of the second terminal includes at least one of a speed of the second terminal (see paragraph [0242]), a moving direction of the second terminal (see paragraph [0250]), and a position of the second terminal (see paragraph [0246]).
As to claim 3, it recites at least one of the four conditions. For the broadest reasonable interpretation, Aldana is only required to show one of the four conditions to read on the claimed limitations, the other three conditions will not be given any patentable weight. In this instance, Aldana discloses the first condition, wherein a distance between the second terminal and the first terminal or a distance between the second terminal and a center position of the cluster is less than or equal to a distance threshold (see at least paragraphs [0496], [0547], [0590], [1193]).
As to claim 4, as discussed in the rejection to claim 3 as set forth above, the second condition will not be given any patentable weight for the broadest reasonable interpretation. Aldana reads on the claimed limitations for similar reasons with respect to claim 3.
As to claim 5, Aldana discloses the information related to the cluster includes information related to mobility of the cluster. See paragraphs [0226], [0239], [0242], [0246], [0247], [0250].
As to claim 6, Aldana discloses the mobility of the cluster includes at least one of a speed of the cluster, a movement direction of the cluster, and a position of the cluster. See paragraphs [0239], [0247], [0350].
As to claim 7, Aldana discloses the second terminal is included in the cluster based on the first terminal receiving a response message for the cluster join message from the second terminal. See paragraphs [0223], [0225].
As to claim 8, Aldana discloses the first terminal detects the mobility of the second terminal based on the first terminal receiving a cluster join request message from the second terminal. See paragraphs [0242], [0246], [0250], [1202].
As to claim 9, Aldana discloses the cluster includes a plurality of terminals, and wherein the cluster has an area less than or equal to a coverage threshold (see paragraphs [0237], [0239], [1193]).
Aldana fails to disclose a cluster in which a difference between a speed of each of the plurality of terminals and an average speed of the cluster is less than or equal to a speed threshold, wherein a difference between a moving direction of each of the plurality of terminals and an average moving direction of the cluster is less than or equal to a direction threshold. However, those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary characteristics of a cluster. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from having such characteristics (i.e., a difference between a speed of each of the plurality of terminals and an average speed of the cluster is less than or equal to a speed threshold, wherein a difference between a moving direction of each of the plurality of terminals and an average moving direction of the cluster is less than or equal to a direction threshold). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Aldana as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as members are less likely to leave the cluster.
As to claim 10, Aldana fails to disclose the cluster is a subscription cluster which is subscribed by the second terminal. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such a subscription cluster is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Aldana as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as growing meaningful member relationships.
As to claim 13, Aldana discloses the first terminal is a representative terminal of the cluster (see cluster head 904 as disclosed in paragraph [0242]).
As to claim 14, Aldana fails to disclose the second terminal is a low-power terminal. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such a low-power terminal is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Aldana as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as prolong battery life.
As to claim 15, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above. Aldana further discloses a memory 214 storing instructions (see figure 2, paragraph [0177]), at least one processor 208 (see figure 2, paragraph [0177]) coupling to the at least one memory 214 and at least one transceiver 204 (see figure 2, paragraph [0177]).
As to claim 17, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 15 as set forth above.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldana in view of Brahmi, and Akiyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tan (US 2016/0381538).
As to claim 11, Aldana fails to disclose the cluster message is a message transmitted periodically. Tan discloses a cluster message is a message transmitted periodically (see paragraphs [0060], [0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Tan to Aldana, in order to reduce power consumption of the first device.
As to claim 12, the combination of Aldana and Tan discloses selecting a terminal as a cluster leader based on remaining battery capacity (see Tan, paragraphs [0065], [0081]), but fails to expressly disclose selecting the cluster leader that has a largest remaining battery capacity. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such a teaching is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Aldana and Tan, such that a terminal that has a largest remaining battery capacity is selected as a cluster leader, in order to provide reliable communications to/from the cluster leader.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646