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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 23 December 2025. Claims 1-19, and 21 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claim 20 was previously cancelled.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated 23 December 2025, Examiner maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection; maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections; and maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 23 December 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 8-11, that claims 1-19 and 21 are directed to eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims, 1, 11, and 18, recite abstract ideas, specifically, mental processes (“determining…” and “identifying…”), applied by a generic computer (“a vehicle computing system”) and recites an insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution data transmitting), without significantly more (i.e., vehicle control). For these reasons, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections. For a detailed explanation on how claims 1-19 and 21 are not subject matter eligible, see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 section, below.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 11-12, that US-20220394557-A1 (“Cepeda”) only discloses “determinations and task allocations performed by an external cloud platform rather than by a vehicle computing system included within a vehicle and further fail to describe the vehicle computing system selecting vehicle functions of the vehicle itself and transmitting vehicle sensor data for those functions to an external computing device…” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cepeda discloses a vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) network connection in which a vehicle’s computing system determines and requests assistance with vehicle functions and sends the request to nearby resources, based on the current location and network connection (see Cepeda, para. 0048). For this reason, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 11-12, Cepeda does not disclose “determining, by a vehicle computing system included within a vehicle, a geographical location of the vehicle and network conditions for the vehicle.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cepeda discloses autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles that are equipped with an on-board computing system, GPS and other location-determining sensors, and network communication sensors (see Cepeda, para. 0037-0038, and 0096). The on-board vehicle computing system uses data from the sensors to determine its location and network conditions, specifically, the vehicles can collect data on the location and attribute data of 5G high-band signals, to determine where and when a vehicle can perform high volume data transmission (see Cepeda, para. 0035). For these reasons, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 13, Cepeda does not disclose “transmitting, by the vehicle computing system, a set of sensor data for the set of vehicle functions to the computing device.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cepeda discloses a V2V scenario in which a vehicle’s computing system (i.e., the vehicle computing system) determines it needs external assistance regarding network bandwidth resources and transmits a network bandwidth resource request (i.e., a set of sensor data for the set of vehicle functions) to another vehicle (i.e., to the computing device) (see Cepeda, para. 0048). For these reasons, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 13, Cepeda does not disclose “the network conditions are represented by a single metric that is comprised of a plurality of combined parameters.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cepeda discloses transmission and processing availability schedule data, generated by a vehicle’s computing system, that includes a network type/speed metric (i.e., 5G mid/low speed, 4G, 3G, Wi-Fi, etc.) which is a single metric that is comprised of a plurality of combined parameters (see Cepeda, para. 0038). For these reasons, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claims, 1, 11, and 18, recite subject matter that falls within the following group of abstract ideas: mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 11 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine), and claim 18 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 18 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. The abstract idea recited in claim 1 is emphasized, below, and claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
determining, by a vehicle computing system included within a vehicle, a geographical location of the vehicle and network conditions for the vehicle, wherein the network conditions are represented by a single metric that is comprised of a plurality of combined parameters;
identifying, by the vehicle computing system, a set of vehicle functions to be assisted by a computing device external to the vehicle based on the geographical location and the network conditions; and
transmitting, by the vehicle computing system, a set of sensor data for the set of vehicle functions to the computing device.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process.” Specifically, the “determining” step encompasses a person, operating a vehicle, using visual cues from a map and/or landmarks surrounding the vehicle to determine the geographical location of a vehicle and observing the connection or signal strength of connected vehicle devices and determining whether network connection is available in a location. Furthermore, the “identifying” step, also encompasses a person, operating a vehicle, identifying vehicle functions that can or must be assisted by a computing device external to the vehicle, like GPS navigation, satellite radio, or roadside assistance services. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea is as follows (where the underlined portions are the additional limitations, while the emphasized portions continue to represent the abstract idea.):
A method, comprising:
determining, by a vehicle computing system included within a vehicle, a geographical location of the vehicle and network conditions for the vehicle, wherein the network conditions are represented by a single metric that is comprised of a plurality of combined parameters;
identifying, by the vehicle computing system, a set of vehicle functions to be assisted by a computing device external to the vehicle based on the geographical location and the network conditions; and
transmitting, by the vehicle computing system, a set of sensor data for the set of vehicle functions to the computing device.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of a “by a vehicle computing system”, the examiner submits that this limitation is an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the determining and identifying by a vehicle computing system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining and identifying steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The vehicle computing system is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the vehicle computing system).
Regarding the additional limitation of “transmitting…a set of sensor data…”, the examiner submits that this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity, that merely uses a computer to perform the process. In particular, the “transmitting” step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post-solution data sending, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an order combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05) Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “by a vehicle computing device” acts as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and the additional element of “transmitting…a set of sensor data…” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically, post-solution data sending. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, nor do insignificant extra-solution activities integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” Independent claims 11 and 18 recite similar limitations to those discussed above with regards to independent claim 1, and therefore discussion is omitted for brevity.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “transmitting…a set of sensor data…” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on/in a vehicle and the specification does not provide any indication that the processing device is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, independent claims 1, 11, and 18 are not subject matter eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, 19, and 21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be subject matter eligible. The additional elements in claims 2-7 further narrow the limitations addressed in the claim 1 analysis, above. The additional elements in claim 8, “receiving update data…and updating…,” and the first additional element in claim 9, “receiving additional data…” are insignificant extra-solution activities, specifically data gathering. Lastly, the second additional element in claim 9, “performing the set of vehicle functions…” and the additional element in claim 10, “adjusting collection of additional sensor data…”, merely recite only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished) without any restriction on how the result is accomplished or a description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Therefore, the claims do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, 19, and 21 are not subject matter eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 18.
Therefore, claims 1-19 and 21 are not subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20220394557-A1, hereinafter “Cepeda” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 11, and analogous claim 1, Cepeda discloses an apparatus [and a method] (Cepeda, para. 0003: “…a method [i.e., a method] comprises determining, by one or more processors, location data associated with a mobile computing system. The method also comprises processing, by the one or more processors, the location data to determine a transmission availability schedule of the mobile computing system via one or more wireless network connections.”; para. 0004: “…an apparatus [i.e., an apparatus] comprises at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more computer programs, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause, at least in part, the apparatus to determine location data associated with a mobile computing system. The apparatus is also caused to process the location data to determine a transmission availability schedule for transmission of data to and/or from the mobile computing system via one or more wireless network connections.”), comprising:
a memory to store data (Cepeda, para. 0004: “…an apparatus comprises at least one processor, and at least one memory [i.e., a memory to store data] including computer program code for one or more computer programs, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause, at least in part, the apparatus to determine location data associated with a mobile computing system.”); and
a processing device included within a vehicle and operatively coupled to the memory (Cepeda, para. 0004: “an apparatus comprises at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more computer programs, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor [i.e., a processing device included within a vehicle and operatively coupled to the memory], cause, at least in part, the apparatus to determine location data associated with a mobile computing system.”; para. 0027: “Vehicles on-board resources can include hardware, execution environment capabilities, network capabilities, etc. For instance, the hardware may include CPU cores [i.e., included within a vehicle], graphics processing (GPU) Cores, architecture types, RAM, storage capacity, sensors, etc.”; para. 0032: “…the system 100 can provide mobile computing resources (e.g., connected vehicles 101 a-101 n (collectively referred to as vehicles 101), mobile devices, etc.) using high-speed connections to provide cloud computing services. The vehicles 101 can be standard vehicles, autonomous vehicles, heavily assisted driving (HAD) vehicles, semi-autonomous vehicles, etc.”), the processing device to:
determine a geographical location of the vehicle and network conditions for the vehicle, wherein the network conditions are represented by a single metric that is comprised of a plurality of combined parameters (Cepeda, para. 0096: “…a vehicle 101 may include GPS or other satellite-based receivers to obtain geographic coordinates from satellites 127 for determining current location and time. Further, the location can be determined by visual odometry, triangulation systems such as A-GPS, Cell of Origin, or other location extrapolation technologies [i.e., determine a geographical location of the vehicle, by a vehicle computing system included within a vehicle].”; para. 0037: “…the vehicles 101 include one or more vehicle sensors such as 5G antenna, location sensors (e.g., GNSS receivers), LiDAR, etc.”; para. 0038: “To simply the discussion, by way of example, the system 100 can collect the transmission and processing availability schedule data of one vehicle (e.g., the vehicle 101 a) [i.e., determine…network conditions for the vehicle, wherein the network conditions are represented by a single metric that is comprised of a plurality of combined parameters]. For instance, the transmission availability schedule data may include 5G high band link attributes and other connectivity availability link attributes such as 5G mid/low speed, 4G, 3G, Wi-Fi, Li-Fi, etc.) [i.e., network conditions] in an availability schedule which indicates at which time periods and locations from a mobility profile of a vehicle it will have different network connectivity.”),
identify a set of vehicle functions to be assisted by a computing device external to the vehicle, based on the geographical location and the network conditions (Cepeda, para. 0047: “the vehicle 101 a can report and/or update to the system 100 its availability schedule [i.e., based on the geographical location and the network conditions] in real-time for the respective resource capacities, that in turn triggers cloud computing user(s) to start data transmissions.”; para. 0048: “…the system 100 can allocate resources to support other services than cloud computing from the vehicle 101 a in response to request(s) by nearby vehicle(s) and/or user device(s). For instance, another vehicle and/or user device outside of the vehicle 101 a can request the system 100 to allocate nearby bandwidth resource, such as a network connection (e.g., 5G high band) of the vehicle 101 a, to receive data (e.g., movies) on its behalf and/or to provide internet access [i.e., identify a set of vehicle functions to be assisted by a computing device external to the vehicle]. The 5G-enabled vehicle 101 a then can transmit the movies and/or provide internet access to the other vehicle and/or user device (that is not 5G-enabled) via a V2V connection or a V2X connection.”); and
transmit a set of sensor data for the set of vehicle functions to the computing device (Cepeda, para. 0048: “…the system 100 can allocate resources to support other services than cloud computing from the vehicle 101 a in response to request(s) by nearby vehicle(s) [i.e., data for the set of vehicle functions] and/or user device(s).; para. 0058: “Once the requesting user accepts the offer, the system 100 can reserve the capacity at the chosen vehicle/fleet (e.g., the vehicle 101 a). After the allocation of mobile resources to the requesting user, the system 100 can send the data [i.e., transmit a set of sensor data] for processing to the vehicle 101 a [i.e., to the computing device] (and/or a fleet of vehicles) based on the transmission schedule(s) of network connection(s).”).
Regarding claim 13, and analogous claim 4, Cepeda discloses the apparatus of claim 11,
wherein to identify the set of vehicle functions the processing device is further to: identify the set of vehicle functions based on the geographical location, wherein the set of vehicle functions are performable in the geographical location (Cepeda, para. 0035: “The system 100 can then provide and/or publish the data transmission schedule to a mobile processing allocation service (e.g., a mobile processing allocation platform 107), indicating where and when 5G high-band connections will be available to upload and/or download data to the vehicle 101 a. The indications correspond to the times when the vehicle 101 a is expected to be within a 5G coverage [i.e., wherein the set of vehicle functions are performable in the geographical location].”; para. 0038: “To simply the discussion, by way of example, the system 100 can collect the transmission and processing availability schedule data of one vehicle (e.g., the vehicle 101 a). For instance, the transmission availability schedule data may include 5G high band link attributes and other connectivity availability link attributes such as 5G mid/low speed, 4G, 3G, Wi-Fi, Li-Fi, etc.) in an availability schedule which indicates at which time periods and locations [i.e., identify the set of vehicle functions based on the geographical location] from a mobility profile of a vehicle it will have different network connectivity.”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cepeda, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US-20200010083-A1, hereinafter “Staehlin” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 16, and analogous claim 7, Cepeda discloses the apparatus of claim 11, but does not appear to disclose the following:
wherein the set of vehicle functions are identified further based on a set of rules indicating one or more of geographical locations, network conditions, and priorities associated with a plurality of vehicle functions performable by the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Staehlin teaches:
wherein the set of vehicle functions are identified further based on a set of rules indicating one or more of geographical locations, network conditions, and priorities associated with a plurality of vehicle functions performable by the vehicle (Staehlin, para. 0029: “Critical geographical areas, in which offboard trajectories are typically to be provided, can be saved on the server… As a result, the server can identify this area (cumulative offboard trajectories requests) as a critical area. The server can send the offboard trajectories to the communication apparatuses of the driver assistance system pre-emptively or respectively as a precaution in the identified critical area [i.e., a set of rules indicating one or more of geographical locations]. Consequently, the suitable offboard trajectory is available to the control unit of the driver assistance system [i.e., associated with a plurality of vehicle functions performable by the vehicle], without the communication device of the driver assistance system having to request this itself.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cepeda, with the concept of identifying vehicle functions and calculations for outsourced processing based on geographical location, network conditions and function priorities, taught by Staehlin, in order to increase the reliability of the vehicle functions and calculations by processing off-board when the network can support the required data transmission (Staehlin, para. 0008: “The control unit then typically replaces the calculated trajectory with the offboard trajectory at the latest if the sensor data are no longer available in a sufficient quality or respectively condition or if the environment sensors no longer supply any sensor data, such that a reliable calculation of the trajectory is not possible on the basis of the sensor data. Consequently, the partially or respectively autonomous control of the vehicle can be maintained even if this would no longer be reliably possible based on the sensor data.”).
Regarding claim 17, and analogous claim 9, Cepeda discloses the apparatus of claim 11, but does not appear to disclose the following:
wherein the processing device is further to: receive additional data in response to transmitting the set of sensor data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Staehlin teaches:
wherein the processing device is further to: receive additional data in response to transmitting the set of sensor data (Staehlin, para. 0027: “As a result, the driver assistance system [i.e., the processing device] can send the vehicle's sensor data [i.e., transmitting the set of sensor data] which have been captured to the server.”; para. 0028: “According to an embodiment of the invention, the server is designed to recognize early on that a reliable calculation of the trajectory by the control unit of the driver assistance system will probably not be possible on the basis of sensor data, and to subsequently send the offboard trajectory to the communication device of the driver assistance system [i.e., receive additional data in response].”); and
perform the set of vehicle functions based on the additional data (Staehlin, para. 0049: “The offboard trajectory sent by the server [i.e., the additional data] can subsequently be used by the control unit 11 [i.e., the processing device] of the driver assistance system 10 or respectively said offboard trajectory can replace the calculated trajectory. Consequently, the vehicle can furthermore drive partially or respectively fully autonomously [i.e., perform the set of vehicle functions], even if this would not be possible on the basis of the sensor data of the environment sensors.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cepeda, with the concept of transmitting data that clarifies the use or interpretation of other transmitted data, taught by Staehlin, in order to increase the reliability of the vehicle functions that require the other transmitted data (Staehlin, para. 0008: “The control unit then typically replaces the calculated trajectory with the offboard trajectory at the latest if the sensor data are no longer available in a sufficient quality or respectively condition or if the environment sensors no longer supply any sensor data, such that a reliable calculation of the trajectory is not possible on the basis of the sensor data. Consequently, the partially or respectively autonomous control of the vehicle can be maintained even if this would no longer be reliably possible based on the sensor data.”).
Regarding claim 18, Cepeda discloses a method (Cepeda, para. 0003: “…a method [i.e., a method] comprises determining, by one or more processors, location data associated with a mobile computing system. The method also comprises processing, by the one or more processors, the location data to determine a transmission availability schedule of the mobile computing system via one or more wireless network connections.”), comprising:
receiving, by a computing device external to a vehicle, a set of sensor data from the vehicle, wherein the set of sensor data is associated with a set of vehicle functions to be assisted by the computing device external to the vehicle (Cepeda, para. 0035: “In order to effectively utilize the onboard computing power of the vehicle 101 a, the system 100 [i.e., a computing device external to a vehicle] can reliably and quickly transfer to-be-processed data to the vehicle 101 a for processing by the on-board resources (e.g., a mobile computing system 105, e.g., the Drive PX Pegasus™ system). In one embodiment, the system 100 can retrieve road link attribute data that indicates road link(s) served by 5G high-band signals (e.g., 5G Millimeter Wave map attributes stored in a map database and/or collected by vehicles 101 [i.e., receiving, by a computing device external to a vehicle, a set of sensor data from the vehicle]), and determine where and when the vehicle 101 a can perform high volume data transmission for a given timeframe (e.g., a data transmission/connectivity schedule). The system 100 can then provide and/or publish the data transmission schedule to a mobile processing allocation service (e.g., a mobile processing allocation platform 107), indicating where and when 5G high-band connections will be available to upload and/or download data to the vehicle 101 a [i.e., the set of sensor data is associated with a set of vehicle functions to be assisted by the computing device external to the vehicle].”; para. 0048: “In another embodiments, the system 100 [i.e., a computing device external to a vehicle] can allocate resources to support other services than cloud computing from the vehicle 101 a [i.e., a computing device external to a vehicle] in response to request(s) by nearby vehicle(s) [i.e., a vehicle] and/or user device(s). For instance, another vehicle and/or user device outside of the vehicle 101 a can request the system 100 to allocate nearby bandwidth resource, such as a network connection (e.g., 5G high band) of the vehicle 101 a, to receive data (e.g., movies) on its behalf [i.e., sensor data is associated with a set of vehicle functions to be assisted by the computing device external to the vehicle] and/or to provide internet access. The 5G-enabled vehicle 101 a then can transmit the movies and/or provide internet access to the other vehicle and/or user device (that is not 5G-enabled) via a V2V connection or a V2X connection.”),
wherein the set of vehicle functions are based on a geographical location of the vehicle and network conditions for the vehicle, wherein the network conditions are represented by a single metric that is comprised of a plurality of combined parameters (Cepeda, para. 0035: “…the system 100 can retrieve road link attribute data that indicates road link(s) served by 5G high-band signals (e.g., 5G Millimeter Wave map attributes stored in a map database and/or collected by vehicles 101), and determine where and when the vehicle 101 a can perform high volume data transmission for a given timeframe (e.g., a data transmission/connectivity schedule) [i.e., wherein the set of vehicle functions are based on a geographical location of the vehicle and network conditions for the vehicle]. The system 100 can then provide and/or publish the data transmission schedule [i.e., wherein the network conditions are represented by a single metric that is comprised of a plurality of combined parameters] to a mobile processing allocation service (e.g., a mobile processing allocation platform 107), indicating where and when 5G high-band connections will be available to upload and/or download data to the vehicle 101 a. The indications correspond to the times when the vehicle 101 a is expected to be within a 5G coverage.”; para. 0047: “the vehicle 101 a can report and/or update to the system 100 its availability schedule in real-time for the respective resource capacities, that in turn triggers cloud computing user(s) to start data transmissions.”; para. 0048: “…the system 100 can allocate resources to support other services than cloud computing from the vehicle 101 a in response to request(s) by nearby vehicle(s) and/or user device(s). For instance, another vehicle and/or user device outside of the vehicle 101 a [i.e., to be assisted by a computing device external to the vehicle] can request the system 100 to allocate nearby bandwidth resource, such as a network connection (e.g., 5G high band) of the vehicle 101 a, to receive data (e.g., movies) on its behalf and/or to provide internet access [i.e., identify a set of vehicle functions to be assisted by a computing device external to the vehicle]. The 5G-enabled vehicle 101 a then can transmit the movies and/or provide internet access to the other vehicle and/or user device (that is not 5G-enabled) via a V2V connection or a V2X connection.”);
Cepeda does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
generating, by the computing device external to the vehicle, additional data for the set of vehicle functions based on the set of sensor data, wherein the additional data is to be used by the vehicle to perform the set of vehicle functions; and transmitting, by the computing device external to the vehicle, the additional data to the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Staehlin teaches:
generating, by the computing device external to the vehicle, additional data for the set of vehicle functions based on the set of sensor data (Staehlin, para. 0014: “According to another embodiment of the invention, the offboard trajectory received from the server [i.e., generating, by the computing device external to the vehicle] has information regarding the driving angle of the vehicle, the orientation of the vehicle, relative position data of the vehicle, absolute position data of the vehicle, the route to be driven, radii to be driven by the vehicle, speeds to be driven at or the time required for the route to be driven [i.e., additional data for the set of vehicle functions based on the set of sensor data].”; para. 0049: “The offboard trajectory sent by the server can subsequently be used by the control unit 11 of the driver assistance system 10 or respectively said offboard trajectory can replace the calculated trajectory. Consequently, the vehicle can furthermore drive partially or respectively fully autonomously [i.e., for the set of vehicle functions], even if this would not be possible on the basis of the sensor data of the environment sensors.”),
wherein the additional data is to be used by the vehicle to perform the set of vehicle functions (Staehlin, para. 0049: “The offboard trajectory [i.e., the additional data] sent by the server can subsequently be used by the control unit 11 of the driver assistance system 10 or respectively said offboard trajectory can replace the calculated trajectory. Consequently, the vehicle can furthermore drive partially or respectively fully autonomously [i.e., wherein the additional data is to be used by the vehicle to perform the set of vehicle functions], even if this would not be possible on the basis of the sensor data of the environment sensors.”); and
transmitting, by the computing device external to the vehicle, the additional data to the vehicle (Staehlin, para. 0049: “The offboard trajectory [i.e., the additional data] sent by the server [i.e., transmitting, by the computing device external to the vehicle] can subsequently be used by the control unit 11 [i.e., to the vehicle] of the driver assistance system 10 or respectively said offboard trajectory can replace the calculated trajectory.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cepeda, with the concept of generating and transmitting data that clarifies the use or interpretation of other transmitted data, taught by Staehlin, in order to increase the reliability of the vehicle functions that require the other transmitted data (Staehlin, para. 0008: “The control unit then typically replaces the calculated trajectory with the offboard trajectory at the latest if the sensor data are no longer available in a sufficient quality or respectively condition or if the environment sensors no longer supply any sensor data, such that a reliable calculation of the trajectory is not possible on the basis of the sensor data. Consequently, the partially or respectively autonomous control of the vehicle can be maintained even if this would no longer be reliably possible based on the sensor data.”).
Regarding claim 19, Cepeda and Staehlin discloses the method of claim 18, and Staehlin further teaches the following:
wherein the additional data comprises a set of instructions for performing the set of vehicle functions (Staehlin, para. 0014: “According to another embodiment of the invention, the offboard trajectory received from the server has information regarding the driving angle of the vehicle, the orientation of the vehicle, relative position data of the vehicle, absolute position data of the vehicle, the route to be driven, radii to be driven by the vehicle, speeds to be driven at or the time required for the route to be driven [i.e., a set of instructions for performing the set of vehicle functions].”; para. 0049: “The offboard trajectory [i.e., the additional data] sent by the server can subsequently be used by the control unit 11 of the driver assistance system 10 or respectively said offboard trajectory can replace the calculated trajectory. Consequently, the vehicle can furthermore drive partially or respectively fully autonomously [i.e., set of vehicle functions], even if this would not be possible on the basis of the sensor data of the environment sensors.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cepeda, with the concept of generating and transmitting data that clarifies the use or interpretation of other transmitted data, taught by Staehlin, in order to increase the reliability of the vehicle functions that require the other transmitted data (Staehlin, para. 0008: “The control unit then typically replaces the calculated trajectory with the offboard trajectory at the latest if the sensor data are no longer available in a sufficient quality or respectively condition or if the environment sensors no longer supply any sensor data, such that a reliable calculation of the trajectory is not possible on the basis of the sensor data. Consequently, the partially or respectively autonomous control of the vehicle can be maintained even if this would no longer be reliably possible based on the sensor data.”).
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cepeda, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US-20200201315-A1, hereinafter “Gogna” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 2, Cepeda discloses the method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
wherein determining network conditions comprises: determining one or more of latency, throughput, jitter, data loss, noise, and interference for data communicated by the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gogna teaches:
wherein determining network conditions comprises: determining one or more of latency, throughput, jitter, data loss, noise, and interference for data communicated by the vehicle (Gogna, para. 0015: “As the vehicle traverses the environment, the vehicle can monitor network parameters associated with the networks [i.e., determining network conditions]. For example, the vehicle can monitor network parameters such as bandwidth data, signal strength data, frequency band data, latency data, jitter data, and/or error rate data, although other types of network parameters are contemplated.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cepeda, with the capability of monitoring the conditions/status of a network used for transmitting and receiving data needed for vehicle functionality, taught by Gogna, in order to improve the functionality of the computing devices that require the transmitted data, by increasing the ability of the computing devices to maintain a usable connection with the network (Gogna, para. 0020: “Additionally, the techniques discussed herein can improve a functioning of a computing device by increasing the ability for the computing device to maintain a connection to one or more networks and/or improve the connection to the one or more networks. For example, a computing device associated with a vehicle can determine that a first network is unavailable but that a second network is available. Then, the computing device can transmit prioritized data using the second network to ensure an uninterrupted communication with a remote computing device.” ; para. 0021: “Therefore, the functioning of a computing device can be increased by increasing the computing device's ability to maintain a consistent connection and/or improving the data transfer performance of the computing device. As can be understood, maintaining and/or improving a network connection with a vehicle can improve safety outcomes and can improve ride quality by quickly resolving issues remotely, particularly in the context of autonomous vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 12, and analogous claim 3, Cepeda discloses the apparatus of claim 11, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
wherein to identify the set of vehicle functions the processing device is further to: determine an amount of data that can be transmitted to the computing device based on the network conditions; and identify the set of vehicle functions based on the amount of data that can be transmitted.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gogna teaches:
wherein to identify the set of vehicle functions the processing device is further to: determine an amount of data that can be transmitted to the computing device based on the network conditions (Gogna, para. 0015: “Based on the network parameters, the vehicle can prepare the vehicle data for transmission. For example, the network parameters can indicate [i.e., based on the network conditions] that the vehicle can transmit at a data rate of 20 megabits per second (Mbps) [i.e., determine an amount of data that can be transmitted to the computing device].”); and
identify the set of vehicle functions based on the amount of data that can be transmitted (Gogna, para. 0015: “In response, the vehicle can compress or select the vehicle data [i.e., identify the set of vehicle functions] so that it does not exceed the 20 Mbps data rate [i.e., based on the amount of data that can be transmitted] or that the vehicle data saturates the 20 Mbps data rate.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cepeda, with the capability of determining the amount of data that can be transmitted over a connected network that is used to support vehicle functionality and identify which functions can be supported based on the available bandwidth, taught by Gogna, in order to not exceed the available bandwidth of the network and cause reliability issues and/or data transfer errors, thus increasing the ability of the computing devices to maintain a usable connection with the network (Gogna, para. 0021: “Therefore, the functioning of a computing device can be increased by increasing the computing device's ability to maintain a consistent connection and/or improving the data transfer performance of the computing device. As can be understood, maintaining and/or improving a network connection with a vehicle can improve safety outcomes and can improve ride quality by quickly resolving issues remotely, particularly in the context of autonomous vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 14, and analogous claim 5, Cepeda discloses the apparatus of claim 11, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the set of vehicle functions are identified further based on a set of priorities associated with the set of vehicle functions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gogna teaches:
wherein the set of vehicle functions are identified further based on a set of priorities associated with the set of vehicle functions (Gogna, para. 0016: “In some instances, the vehicle computing device can determine portions of vehicle data and assign a priority level [i.e., based on a set of priorities associated with the set of vehicle functions] with the portions of the vehicle data based on the network parameters.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cepeda, with the capability of prioritizing the proposed transmitted data that is used for certain vehicle functions, taught by Gogna, in order to optimize the available capabilities of the connected network and attempt to ensure the highest priority data (for the highest priority vehicle functions) is transmitted first, thus increasing functional reliability and vehicle safety (Gogna, para. 0021: “Therefore, the functioning of a computing device can be increased by increasing the computing device's ability to maintain a consistent connection and/or improving the data transfer performance of the computing device. As can be understood, maintaining and/or improving a network connection with a vehicle can improve safety outcomes and can improve ride quality by quickly resolving issues remotely, particularly in the context of autonomous vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 15, and analogous claim 6, Cepeda and Gogna teach the apparatus of claim 14, and Gogna further teaches the following:
wherein to identify the set of vehicle functions the processing device is further to: identify the set of vehicle functions over other vehicle functions based on the set of priorities (Gogna, para. 0016: “In some instances, the vehicle computing device can determine portions of vehicle data and assign a priority level [i.e., based on the set of priorities] with the portions of the vehicle data based on the network parameters. For example, the vehicle computing device can associate a priority level for the vehicle data associated with the vehicle diagnostic data that is higher than a priority level associated with the image data [i.e., identify the set of vehicle functions over other vehicle functions].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cepeda, with the capability of prioritizing the proposed transmitted data that is used for certain vehicle functions, taught by Gogna, in order to optimize the available capabilities of the connected network and attempt to ensure the highest priority data (for the highest priority vehicle functions) is transmitted first, thus increasing functional reliability and vehicle safety (Gogna, para. 0021: “Therefore, the functioning of a computing device can be increased by increasing the computing device's ability to maintain a consistent connection and/or improving the data transfer performance of the computing device. As can be understood, maintaining and/or improving a network connection with a vehicle can improve safety outcomes and can improve ride quality by quickly resolving issues remotely, particularly in the context of autonomous vehicle.”).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cepeda, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US-20210235281, hereinafter “Magzimof” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 8, Cepeda discloses the method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
further comprising: receiving update data indicating updates to one or more rules of a set of rules; and updating the set of rules based on the update data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Magzimof teaches:
further comprising: receiving update data indicating updates to one or more rules of a set of rules; and updating the set of rules based on the update data (Magzimof, para. 0052: “In an embodiment, the target predicted quality score represents an optimal predicted achievable quality for the network connection as indicated by the geospatial database 210. Here, the quality score may be computed based on a plurality of different network performance attributes such as, for example, throughput, latency, or other attributes. The vehicle controller 208 configures 610 the communication system 206 according to the determined network parameters that enable the vehicle 102 to achieve the target quality score. The vehicle 102 may then transmit 612 a data stream over the network 140 in accordance with its configuration [i.e., one or more rules of a set of rules]. In an embodiment, the above described process may be repeated periodically [i.e., updating the set of rules based on the update data] or upon occurrence of a trigger event to update the network parameters [i.e., receiving update data indicating updates] at different time intervals.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cepeda, with the concept of updating the rules governing data transmission over a network based on vehicle location, network conditions and priority, taught by Magzimof, in order to optimize the usage of the available network and improve the functionality of the computing processes that rely on data transmitted across the network (Magzimof, para. 0017: “This disclosure describes a system for collecting, storing, and disseminating geographically bound heterogeneous datasets relating to wireless network resource availability. The disclosure furthermore relates to connected vehicles capable of using such a system as a complement to local sensors and computing devices for optimizing their wireless connectivity based on a number of parameters, including but not limited to geographical location, cellular base station proximity and congestion levels, local time, and historical patterns of such parameters.”).
Regarding claim 10, Cepeda discloses the method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
further comprising: adjusting collection of additional sensor data based on one or more of the geographical location and network conditions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Magzimof teaches:
further comprising: adjusting collection of additional sensor data based on one or more of the geographical location and network conditions (Magzimof, para. 0041: “For example, if a vehicle 102 is only equipped with a single WiFi wireless LAN adapter, the vehicle controller 208 may proactively decrease the value of the TCP congestion window parameter as the vehicle 102 approaches a location with poor wireless connectivity [i.e., based on one or more of the geographical location and network conditions], or use a similar technique with a non-TCP data stream. The vehicle controller 208 may inform the communication system 206 of the impending maximum allowed data transmission rate change in order to prevent link congestion, as well as inform the component of the vehicle 102 generating the data stream [i.e., adjusting collection of additional sensor data] of the impending changes in order to enable it to adjust the data stream bit rate accordingly.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cepeda, with the concept of adjusting the collection of sensor data that is to be transmitted over a network, based on the network conditions, taught by Magzimof, in order to optimize the usage of the available network and improve the functionality of the computing processes that rely on data transmitted across the network (Magzimof, para. 0017: “This disclosure describes a system for collecting, storing, and disseminating geographically bound heterogeneous datasets relating to wireless network resource availability. The disclosure furthermore relates to connected vehicles capable of using such a system as a complement to local sensors and computing devices for optimizing their wireless connectivity based on a number of parameters, including but not limited to geographical location, cellular base station proximity and congestion levels, local time, and historical patterns of such parameters.”).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cepeda, in view of Staehlin, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US-20200201315-A1, hereinafter “Gogna” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 21, Cepeda and Staehlin teach The method of claim 18, but do not appear to explicitly teach the following:
comprising: determining network conditions, wherein determining network conditions comprises: determining one or more of latency, throughput, jitter, data loss, noise, and interference for data communicated by the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gogna teaches:
comprising: determining network conditions, wherein determining network conditions comprises: determining one or more of latency, throughput, jitter, data loss, noise, and interference for data communicated by the vehicle (Gogna, para. 0015: “As the vehicle traverses the environment, the vehicle can monitor network parameters associated with the networks [i.e., determining network conditions]. For example, the vehicle can monitor network parameters such as bandwidth data, signal strength data, frequency band data, latency data, jitter data, and/or error rate data, although other types of network parameters are contemplated.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cepeda, as modified by Staehlin, with the capability of monitoring the conditions/status of a network used for transmitting and receiving data needed for vehicle functionality, taught by Gogna, in order to improve the functionality of the computing devices that require the transmitted data, by increasing the ability of the computing devices to maintain a usable connection with the network (Gogna, para. 0020: “Additionally, the techniques discussed herein can improve a functioning of a computing device by increasing the ability for the computing device to maintain a connection to one or more networks and/or improve the connection to the one or more networks. For example, a computing device associated with a vehicle can determine that a first network is unavailable but that a second network is available. Then, the computing device can transmit prioritized data using the second network to ensure an uninterrupted communication with a remote computing device.” ; para. 0021: “Therefore, the functioning of a computing device can be increased by increasing the computing device's ability to maintain a consistent connection and/or improving the data transfer performance of the computing device. As can be understood, maintaining and/or improving a network connection with a vehicle can improve safety outcomes and can improve ride quality by quickly resolving issues remotely, particularly in the context of autonomous vehicle.”).
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 Leah N Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/L.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663