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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 01/20/2026. Claims 9, 13-14, 24, 28-29, 31, 35-36, 38, 42-43, 45, 47, 49, and 51 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 9-15, and 24-52 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/response, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9-13, 15, 24-28, 30, 38-42 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI in view of Futasugi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of SUI and Guo US 2020/0294394 A1 as detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for transmitting, means for receiving, and means for providing in claims 31-37.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Means for transmitting, means for receiving, and means for providing are interpreted to be an OBU on-board a vehicle including a processor and a memory as described in Paragraphs 0132-0134.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9-15 and 47-48 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. With respect to claim 9, the applicant claims “negotiating by the first vehicle”. Said limitation is not supported in the specification. Paragraph 0110 of the specification discloses “The RSU 602 or the server 606 may be configured to utilize the BSM information to group vehicles proximate to the intersection 600 based on the clearance factors”. The specification is silent about the vehicle performing the negotiation.
Claims 10-15 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 9 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed 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.
Claim(s) 9-13, 15, 24-28, 30, 38-42 and 44-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI US 2020/0193813 A1 (hence SUI) in view of Guo US 2020/0294394 A1 (hence Guo) or in an alternative rejection, where providing an indication to proceed or halt is being performed by the OBU on-board a vehicle, Claim(s) 9-13, 15, 24-28, 30, 38-42 and 44-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI US 2020/0193813 A1 (hence SUI) in view of Guo US 2020/0294394 A1 (hence Guo).
In re claims 9, 24, and 38, SUI discloses an intelligent traffic technology, and more particularly, to a navigation method, device and system for a cross intersection (Abstract and Paragraph 0001) and teaches the following:
transmitting wirelessly, from a first vehicle, one or more vehicle state messages indicating heading of the first vehicle (Paragraphs 0051, 0054 and 0073);
negotiating, by the first vehicle with at least a second vehicle and a network entity, the network entity comprising a component of a radio access network and being configured to communicate wirelessly with the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Fig.1, a communication established between the vehicle and the intersection controller, Fig.11, Paragraphs 0090+ and Tables 1-15 describe communication between a plurality of vehicles to pass an intersection, and Paragraph 0163);
receiving, at the first vehicle, the one or more traffic intersection control messages including proceed information including a first indication for the vehicles to proceed or halt progress through an intersection (Fig.1, S200, and Paragraphs 0041, 0058, Paragraphs 0090+ and Tables 1-15);
and providing a second indication for the first vehicle to proceed or halt progress through the intersection based at least in part on the one or more traffic intersection control messages (Fig.1, S300, and Paragraph 0042, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim could read on the intersection controller providing an indication or a vehicle controller/interface providing the indication)
However, SUI doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
vehicle state messages indicating location, speed, of the first vehicle
to form a first group of vehicles comprising at least the first vehicle and the second vehicle and for the first group of vehicles to proceed or halt progress through an intersection
Nevertheless, Guo discloses optimizing control efficiency by making real time optimal control decisions so that vehicles do not need to stop to pass the intersection and/or highway merging point (Abstract and Paragraph 0010) and teaches the following:
vehicle state messages indicating location, speed, of the first vehicle (Paragraph 0047)
to form a first group of vehicles comprising at least the first vehicle and the second vehicle and for the first group of vehicles to proceed or halt progress through an intersection (Paragraph 0055 “The IoV-Edge then groups vehicles in the sequencing zone into groups (clusters) based on the estimated arrival time”, Fig.6, and Paragraph 0057, Fig.7, and Paragraph 0062, and Paragraph 0081 “a grouping module 933 configured to group vehicles traveling within the sequencing zone into a set of groups of the vehicles”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the SUI reference to include jointly controlling vehicles traveling on different roads, as taught by Guo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to optimize control efficiency by making real time optimal control decisions so that vehicles do not need to stop to pass the intersection and/or highway merging point (Guo, Paragraph 0010).
In the alternative rejection where providing an indication to proceed or halt is being performed by the OBU on-board a vehicle, Claim(s) 9-13, 15, 24-28, 30, 38-42 and 44-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI US 2020/0193813 A1 (hence SUI) in view of Guo US 2020/0294394 A1 (hence Guo).
In re claims 9, 24, 31, and 38, SUI discloses an intelligent traffic technology, and more particularly, to a navigation method, device and system for a cross intersection (Abstract and Paragraph 0001) and teaches the following:
transmitting wirelessly, from a first vehicle, one or more vehicle state messages indicating heading of the first vehicle (Paragraphs 0051, 0054 and 0073);
negotiating, by the first vehicle with at least a second vehicle and a network entity, the network entity comprising a component of a radio access network and being configured to communicate wirelessly with the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Fig.1, a communication established between the vehicle and the intersection controller, Fig.11, Paragraphs 0090+ and Tables 1-15 describe communication between a plurality of vehicles to pass an intersection, and Paragraph 0163);
receiving, at the first vehicle, the one or more traffic intersection control messages including proceed information including a first indication for the vehicles to proceed or halt progress through an intersection (Fig.1, S200, and Paragraphs 0041, 0058, Paragraphs 0090+ and Tables 1-15);
and providing a second indication for the first vehicle to proceed or halt progress through the intersection based at least in part on the one or more traffic intersection control messages (Fig.1, S300, and Paragraph 0042, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim could read on the intersection controller providing an indication or a vehicle controller/interface providing the indication)
However, SUI discloses the intersection controller transmitting an action instruction to the vehicle controller but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
vehicle state messages indicating location, speed, of the first vehicle
to form a first group of vehicles comprising at least the first vehicle and the second vehicle and for the first group of vehicles to proceed or halt progress through an intersection
providing a second indication for the first vehicle to proceed or halt progress through the intersection based at least in part on the one or more traffic intersection control messages
Nevertheless, Guo discloses optimizing control efficiency by making real time optimal control decisions so that vehicles do not need to stop to pass the intersection and/or highway merging point (Abstract and Paragraph 0010) and teaches the following:
vehicle state messages indicating location, speed, of the first vehicle (Paragraph 0047)
to form a first group of vehicles comprising at least the first vehicle and the second vehicle and for the first group of vehicles to proceed or halt progress through an intersection (Paragraph 0055 “The IoV-Edge then groups vehicles in the sequencing zone into groups (clusters) based on the estimated arrival time”, Fig.6, and Paragraph 0057, Fig.7, and Paragraph 0062, and Paragraph 0081 “a grouping module 933 configured to group vehicles traveling within the sequencing zone into a set of groups of the vehicles”)
providing a second indication for the first vehicle to proceed or halt progress through the intersection based at least in part on the one or more traffic intersection control messages (Fig.4, #460, and Paragraph 0055)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the SUI reference to include jointly controlling vehicles traveling on different roads, as taught by Guo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to optimize control efficiency by making real time optimal control decisions so that vehicles do not need to stop to pass the intersection and/or highway merging point (Guo, Paragraph 0010).
In re claims 10, 25, 39 and in the alternative rejection, claims 10, 25, 32, and 39, SUI teaches the following:
transmitting vehicle priority information (Paragraphs 0049-0050)
In re claims 11, 26, 40 and in the alternative rejection, claims 11, 26, 33, and 40, SUI teaches the following:
wherein receiving the one or more traffic intersection control messages includes receiving a unicast message including the proceed information (Paragraphs 0043 and 0059)
In re claims 12, 27, 41, and in the alternative rejection, claims 12, 27, 34, and 41, SUI teaches the following:
wherein receiving the one or more traffic intersection control messages includes receiving a groupcast message including a list of vehicle identification values (Paragraphs 0076, and 0079-0080)
In re claims 13, 28, 42, and in the alternative rejection, claims 13, 28, 35, and 42, SUI teaches the following:
wherein providing the second indication to proceed or halt progress through the intersection includes providing an instruction to a controller in an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle (Paragraph 0045)
In re claims 15, 30, 44, and in the alternative rejection, claims 15, 30, 37, and 44, SUI teaches the following:
wherein the one or more traffic intersection control messages are received via a PC5 interface, a Uu interface, a device-to-device protocol, or any combinations thereof (Paragraph 0043)
In re claims 45, 47, and 49, and in the alternative rejection, claims 45, 47, 49, and 51, Guo teaches the following:
at least one of transmit first traffic intersection control information to, and receive second traffic intersection control information from, a second group of vehicles that is different from the first group of vehicles (Paragraphs 0015, Fig.5, and Paragraph 0056)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the SUI reference to include grouping vehicles traveling within the sequencing zone on the first and the second roads into a set of groups of the vehicles, as taught by Guo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the safety and optimality of passing the intersection (Guo, Paragraph 0015).
In re claims 46, 48, and 50, and in the alternative rejection, claims 46, 48, 50, and 52, Guo teaches the following:
negotiate a right of way for the first group of vehicles (Fig.6, and Paragraph 0057)
Claim(s) 14, 29, 36, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUI in view of Guo and further in view of Sze et al US 2021/0158693 A1 (hence Sze).
In re claims 14, 29, 36, and 43, the combination of SUI in view of Guo in both of the rejections above discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein providing the second indication to proceed or halt progress through the intersection includes activating a driver alert device
Nevertheless, Sze discloses providing guidance to vehicles or devices operating in vehicles stopped at an intersection (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein providing the second indication to proceed or halt progress through the intersection includes activating a driver alert device (Paragraph 0065 “the congestion control system can generate less precise guidance to a portable device operating in a conventional vehicle” and Paragraph 0069 “a vocalized instruction “slow down” or “do not accelerate to a speed above 20 mph.””)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the SUI reference to include a device operated by a driver, as taught by Sze, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide guidance to a device operated by a driver of the certain vehicle regarding the determined acceleration parameters, in accordance with the determined time (Sze, Paragraph 0007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669