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 Amendment
1. Claims 1, 3-17, and 26 are currently pending.
2. Claim 26 is new.
3. Claim 2 is canceled and Claims 18-25 are withdrawn.
4. Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 12-17 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
6. Claim 26 recites the limitation "the station" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. More specifically, it is unclear if “the station” and “the vehicle station” are the same. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the station is interpreted as the same as the vehicle station.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 3-14, 16-17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunger (US 20210183175 A1) in view of Borras (US 20230056836 A1).
11. Regarding Claim 1, Dunger teaches a vehicle station, comprising: positioning circuitry configured to generate positioning information indicative of movement of the vehicle station (Dunger: [0008] and [0020]);
processor circuitry connected to the positioning circuitry, the processor circuitry being configured to operate a road usage monitoring service (RUM) to (Dunger: [0009]):
Determine RUM information of the vehicle station based on the positioning information, the RUM information including road usage data of the vehicle station; and generate a RUM message to include the determined RUM information… (Dunger: [0084]);
And communication circuitry connected to the processor circuitry, the communication circuitry being configured to transmit the RUM message to an infrastructure node (Dunger: [0008] and [0086]).
Dunger fails to explicitly teach to receive mapping data from a mapping service, the mapping data comprising geographic map information retrieved from a geographic database and defining geo-fence boundaries of a plurality of geographical areas (geo-areas); determine a travel route of the vehicle station based on the positioning information; determine, based on the travel route and the geo-fence boundaries, one or more of the geo-areas through which the vehicle station travelled... and generate a RUM message to include the determined RUM information including the one or more geo-areas.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Borras teaches to receive mapping data from a mapping service, the mapping data comprising geographic map information retrieved from a geographic database and defining geo-fence boundaries of a plurality of geographical areas (geo-areas) (Borras: [0050]);
Determine a travel route of the vehicle station based on the positioning information (Borras: [0044]);
Determine, based on the travel route and the geo-fence boundaries, one or more of the geo-areas through which the vehicle station travelled (Borras: [0043]);
And generate a RUM message to include the determined RUM information including the one or more geo-areas (Borras: [0038] and [0050]).
Dunger and Borras are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of road usage communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dunger to incorporate the teachings of Borras to receive mapping data comprising geographic map information retrieved from a geographic database defining geofence boundaries and to determine the geo-areas the vehicle station travelled through because it provides the benefit of a dynamic pricing in geofenced regions with the ability to have real-time payment, as explained in [0052] and [0053]. The geofence regions define rates for traveling on road sections and a usage rate can be modified based on the distance driven in the region.
12. Regarding Claim 3, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Borras teaches to generate the RUM information to include: a vehicle identifier (ID) of the vehicle station (Borras: [0014]),
A start timestamp for the road usage data, an end timestamp for the road usage data (Borras: [0038] and [0048]),
And a set of geo- area tuples, and wherein each geo-area tuple of the set of geo-area tuples includes a geo-area ID and a corresponding distance travelled in a geo-area associated with the geo-area ID (Borras: [0038] and [0050]).
13. Regarding Claim 4, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Borras teaches to store the RUM information as a set of duration bins in local storage circuitry of the vehicle station (Borras: [0038] and [0051]).
14. Regarding Claim 5, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Dunger teaches to operate the RUM to, in response to receipt of a RUM request from the infrastructure node: generate the RUM message (Dunger: [0084]);
And cause the communication circuitry to transmit the RUM message (Dunger: [0008] and [0086]).
15. Regarding Claim 6, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Dunger to determine the RUM information on a periodic basis (Dunger: [0027] and [0084]).
16. Regarding Claim 7, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Dunger the vehicle station includes battery charging circuitry connected to the processor circuitry, wherein the processor circuitry is configured to operate the RUM to: obtain a set of battery parameters from the battery charging circuitry; and determine the RUM information based on the battery parameters (Dunger: [0011] and [0168]).
17. Regarding Claim 8, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Dunger to obtain the set of battery parameters from the battery charging circuitry after a charging process has completed (Dunger: [0101]).
18. Regarding Claim 9, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Dunger the battery charging circuitry includes on- board charging circuitry and a battery management system (Dunger: [0011] and [0109]).
19. Regarding Claim 10, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Dunger the vehicle station is a vehicle intelligent transport system station (ITS-S), the infrastructure node is a roadside ITS-S or a central ITS-S (Dunger: [0008] and [0035]),
The RUM is an ITS-S application in an ITS applications layer, or the RUM is an ITS-S facility in an ITS facilities layer (Dunger: [0086] and [0089]).
20. Regarding Claim 11, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Dunger the central ITS-S is part of an edge compute node or a cloud computing service (Dunger: [0116]).
21. Regarding Claim 12, Dunger teaches a method of operating a road usage monitoring (RUM) service, comprising (Dunger: [0009]):
Receiving, by an infrastructure node, a first RUM message from a vehicle station, wherein the first RUM message including vehicle information related to mobility of the vehicle station (Dunger: [0008] and [0084]);
Extracting, by the infrastructure node, the vehicle information from the first RUM message (Dunger: [0107]);
And generating, by the infrastructure node, a second RUM message including the extracted vehicle information; and transmitting, by the infrastructure node, the second RUM message to a cloud-based RUM service… (Dunger: [0116]).
Dunger fails to explicitly teach to facilitate a determination of one or more geo-areas through which the vehicle station travelled based on geo-fence boundaries defined by mapping data obtained from a mapping service retrieved from a geographic database, and to determine distances travelled within the one or more geo-areas.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Borras teaches transmitting, by the infrastructure node, the second RUM message to a cloud-based RUM service to facilitate a determination of one or more geo-areas through which the vehicle station travelled based on geo-fence boundaries defined by mapping data obtained from a mapping service retrieved from a geographic database (Borras: [0050]),
And to determine distances travelled within the one or more geo-areas (Borras: [0043]).
Dunger and Borras are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of road usage communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dunger to incorporate the teachings of Borras to receive mapping data comprising geographic map information retrieved from a geographic database defining geofence boundaries and to determine the geo-areas the vehicle station travelled through because it provides the benefit of a dynamic pricing in geofenced regions with the ability to have real-time payment, as explained in [0052] and [0053]. The geofence regions define rates for traveling on road sections and a usage rate can be modified based on the distance driven in the region.
22. Regarding Claim 13, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Dunger teaches the vehicle information includes a (i) vehicle identifier (ID) of the vehicle station (Dunger: [0081]),
Location data of the vehicle station, and heading direction of the vehicle station (Dunger: [0084]),
And (ii) one or both of speed data of the vehicle station and a station type of the vehicle station (Dunger: [0064] and [0209]).
23. Regarding Claim 14, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Dunger teaches determining, by the infrastructure node, a travel distance of the vehicle station based on the location data and location data included in a previously received first RUN message from the vehicle station (Dunger: [0084]);
And generating, by the infrastructure node, the second RUM message when the travel distance is larger than a threshold distance (Dunger: [0116] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the travel distance larger than a threshold is equivalent to traveling miles greater than a threshold of zero.).
24. Regarding Claim 16, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Dunger teaches the vehicle station is a vehicle intelligent transport system station (ITS-S), the infrastructure node is a roadside ITS-S or a central ITS-S (Dunger: [0008] and [0035]),
And the cloud-based RUM service is part of the central ITS-S or a different central ITS-S (Dunger: [0116]).
25. Regarding Claim 17, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Dunger teaches the central ITS-S is part of an edge compute node or a cloud computing service, and wherein the different central ITS-S is part of an edge compute node or a cloud computing service (Dunger: [0116]).
26. Regarding Claim 26, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Borras teaches the geo-fence boundaries correspond to jurisdictional boundaries, and wherein the RUM information facilitates a determination, by the infrastructure node, of road usage charges attributable to respective jurisdictions (Borras: [0004] and [0050]),
And the road usage charges being proportional to the distances travelled by the station within the one or more geo-areas (Borras: [0011], [0038], and [0043] Note that the distance driven affecting the fee assessed is equivalent to the road use charges being proportional to the distances travelled in the geo-areas.).
27. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunger (US 20210183175 A1), in view of Borras (US 20230056836 A1), and in further view of Ran (US 20200242930 A1).
28. Regarding Claim 15, Dunger and Borras remains as applied above in Claim 12.
Dunger and Borras fail to explicitly teach receiving, by the infrastructure node, sensor data from respective sensors; performing, by the infrastructure node, environment perception based on the sensor data to identify further vehicle station; generating, by the infrastructure node, further second RUM message including other vehicle information for the further vehicle station based on the environment perception: and transmitting, by the infrastructure node, the further second RUM message to the cloud- based RUM service.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ran teaches receiving, by the infrastructure node, sensor data from respective sensors (Ran: [0044] and [0061]);
Performing, by the infrastructure node, environment perception based on the sensor data to identify further vehicle station (Ran: [0011] and [0043]);
Generating, by the infrastructure node, further second RUM message including other vehicle information for the further vehicle station based on the environment perception (Ran: [0004], [0032], and [0043]);
And transmitting, by the infrastructure node, the further second RUM message to the cloud- based RUM service (Ran: [0042] and [0054]).
Dunger, Borras, and Ran are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dunger and Borras to incorporate the teachings of Ran to receive sensor data to perform environment perception and generate another second RUM message including other vehicle information for another vehicle to transmit the another second RUM message to the cloud based RUM service because it provides the benefit of gathering additional information for the central cloud system to use. This provides the additional benefit of the system having more functions of support for the vehicles.
Response to Arguments
29. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 3-17, and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Borras (US 20230056836 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of receiving mapping data comprising geographic map information retrieved from a geographic database defining geofence boundaries and to determine the geo-areas the vehicle station travelled through in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0043] and [0050]. Borras (US 20230056836 A1) teaches to provide dynamic pricing in geofenced regions so different roads/areas have modified rates based on the distance driven by the vehicle in the region.
30. Dunger (US 20210183175 A1), in view of Borras (US 20230056836 A1), and in further view of Ran (US 20200242930 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
31. Claims 1 and 3-17 remain rejected and Claim 26 is newly rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
32. 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.
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights