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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 12/24/2025. Claims 1, 8, 11-12, and 15-18 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. PCT/CN2022/108794, filed 7/29/2022, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see page 7 of 12, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and but are only partially persuasive.
The 112(b) rejections with respect to “the vehicle” have been updated below to reflect the Applicant’s amended claims, including explanations as to why the claims are still indefinite.
The 112(b) rejections with respect to “a leader vehicle” have been fully considered and are now withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-10 of 12, filed 12/24/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that the amended claims overcome the 101 rejection of record, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the Applicant has alleged that the claims as amended do not recite a judicial exception and that a practical application is provided, however no specific arguments were presented. The Examiner again has provided detailed 101 rejections below, with the attention to the limitation of independent claims 1 and 15 that states “generating…data sharing configuration information…” being the focus of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the Applicant has expressed how the inventive concept provides improvements to vehicle sensor data sharing computing technology, however there is no step claimed of actually utilizing the shared data, but rather the claims still simply reference generic data transfer.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-11 of 12, filed 12/24/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that the teachings of Ganlath do not apply to the claims as amended, and that frequency as claimed is different than the frequency as cited, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0078] of Ganlath describes a frequency of data transfer in terms of Hertz, however other portions of the reference (cited below in updated rejections necessitated by claim amendments) pertain to how often data is transmitted. Conceptually, these are analogous since Hertz based frequency details how often a cycle of signal transmission is completed, whereas the claimed limitations focus on how often a cycle of overall data delivery is completed.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 12, 15-16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (and analogous claim 15) as currently presented states “…a sidelink communication…a sidelink communication…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a sidelink communication…[ [ a ] ] the sidelink communication…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 1 (and analogous claim 15) as currently presented states “…one or more of the plurality of vehicles in the vehicle platoon…the one or more vehicles…the one or more vehicles in the vehicle platoon…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…one or more of the plurality of vehicles in the vehicle platoon…the one or more of the plurality of vehicles in the vehicle platoon…the one or more of the plurality of vehicles in the vehicle platoon…” for the sake of consistency and so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…each of the one or more vehicles…” whereas claim 8 (and similarly claim 16 and claim 18) currently states “…each of the plurality of vehicles…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to have consistent terminology throughout the claims.
Claim 12 as currently presented states “…the sensor data sharing strategy…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “… a sensor data sharing strategy…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claims 16 as currently presented states “…for each of plurality of vehicles other than the leader vehicle…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…for each of the plurality of vehicles other than the leader vehicle…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 11-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 (and analogous claim 15) refer to “a plurality of vehicles” as well as “one or more of the plurality of vehicles in the vehicle platoon” as well as “each of the one or more vehicles”, but later in the claim (and similarly in dependent claims 8 and 11, and claims 16-18, respectively) refer to “the vehicle” which is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims.
Claim 12 is also rejected since the claim is dependent on a previously rejected claim.
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, 8, 11-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Independent claims 1 and 15 are directed towards a method and an apparatus. Therefore, both of the independent claims 1 and 15 and the corresponding dependent claims 8, 11-12, and 16-18 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 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 claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A data sharing method applied to a vehicle platoon, the vehicle platoon comprising a plurality of vehicles, and the data sharing method comprising:
obtaining, from one or more of the plurality of vehicles in the vehicle platoon, status information of the one or more vehicles via a sidelink communication, each of the one or more vehicles comprising at least one sensor, the status information comprising sensor parameter information on each of the one or more vehicles, the sensor parameter information comprising at least one of following information:
whether the vehicle is allowed to share sensor data,
a type of the sensor data that the vehicle is allowed to share, or
a frequency at which the vehicle shares the sensor data, indicating how often the vehicle shares the sensor data;
generating data sharing configuration information for the vehicle platoon according to the status information, the data sharing configuration information comprising one or more sensor data sharing strategies for the vehicle platoon;
transmitting the data sharing configuration information to the one or more vehicles in the vehicle platoon via a sidelink communication, so that the one or more vehicles share sensor data of the one or more vehicles with the vehicle platoon according to the data sharing configuration information.
These limitations, as drafted, are a method that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process. For example, “generating data sharing configuration information…” may be interpreted as mentally formulating information specific to a vehicle. Therefore, the claims are directed towards reciting an abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 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 idea 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 elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A data sharing method applied to a vehicle platoon, the vehicle platoon comprising a plurality of vehicles, and the data sharing method comprising:
obtaining, from one or more of the plurality of vehicles in the vehicle platoon, status information of the one or more vehicles via a sidelink communication, each of the one or more vehicles comprising at least one sensor, the status information comprising sensor parameter information on each of the one or more vehicles, the sensor parameter information comprising at least one of following information:
whether the vehicle is allowed to share sensor data,
a type of the sensor data that the vehicle is allowed to share, or
a frequency at which the vehicle shares the sensor data, indicating how often the vehicle shares the sensor data;
generating data sharing configuration information for the vehicle platoon according to the status information, the data sharing configuration information comprising one or more sensor data sharing strategies for the vehicle platoon;
transmitting the data sharing configuration information to the one or more vehicles in the vehicle platoon via a sidelink communication, so that the one or more vehicles share sensor data of the one or more vehicles with the vehicle platoon according to the data sharing configuration information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of “a data sharing method,” “a vehicle platoon,” “a plurality of vehicles,” “a sidelink communication,” and “at least one sensor” are merely generic components which allow the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). The Examiner submits that these elements are mere computers or other machinery used as a tool to perform the existing process.
The limitations of “obtaining, from one or more of the plurality of vehicles in the vehicle platoon, status information of the one or more vehicles”, “transmitting the data sharing configuration information to the one or more vehicles in the vehicle platoon”, and “the one or more vehicles share sensor data of the one or more vehicles with the vehicle platoon according to the data sharing configuration information” are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity that is data gathering and data output, which does not add any meaningful limits on the claim. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, the additional elements of “status information of the one or more vehicles…comprising at least one sensor” and “the data sharing configuration information comprising one or more sensor data sharing strategies for the vehicle platoon” merely elaborate on the data which is obtained and transmitted, thus simply adding detail to the insignificant extra-solution activity.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, 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, the additional elements of “a data sharing method,” “a vehicle platoon,” “a plurality of vehicles,” “a sidelink communication,” and “at least one sensor” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). In addition, the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does 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”.
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 well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “obtaining, from one or more of the plurality of vehicles in the vehicle platoon, status information of the one or more vehicles,” “transmitting the data sharing configuration information to the one or more vehicles in the vehicle platoon”, and “the one or more vehicles share sensor data of the one or more vehicles with the vehicle platoon according to the data sharing configuration information” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, the communications all occur on a generic network which is widely accessible, and the data processing is merely an interpretation of data for use in transmission, however no unique inventive concept results from the data transmission. 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, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 1, deviating in the memory and processor circuitry, which are simply equated to generic components, and is therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 8, 11-12, and 16-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 18 recite additional data transmission which is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, as well as an additional determination step which can be interpreted as a mental process, thus adding to the abstract idea.
Claims 11-12 recite information that provides detail to the data reported by the generic sensors.
Claims 16-17 recite additional data transmission which is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, while also utilizing a generic sever to communicate with.
Therefore, dependent claims 8, 11-12, and 16-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1 (as well as analogous claim 15).
Therefore, claims 1, 8, 11-12, and 15-18 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 8, 11-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hehn et al. (US-2019/0349731; hereinafter Hehn; already of record) in view of Lekutai (US-2022/0277653; already of record) and Ganlath et al. (US-2022/0244743; hereinafter Ganlath; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Hehn discloses a data sharing method applied to a vehicle platoon, the vehicle platoon comprising a plurality of vehicles (see Hehn at least Abs and [0052]), and the data sharing method comprising:
obtaining, from one or more of the plurality of vehicles in the vehicle platoon, status information of the one or more vehicles … each of the one or more vehicles comprising at least one sensor, the status information comprising sensor parameter information on each of the one or more vehicles (see Hehn at least Fig 2 and [0041] "The dynamic interface will be determined by all three contributing parties: vehicles 20, 30 of the vendor/owner A, vehicles 30 of the vendor/owner B and the common backend server 10. In this embodiment each vehicle 20, 30, 40 contributes some information about its capabilities. The information on the communication capabilities of the mobile transceivers 20, 30, 40 (vehicles in this scenario) may comprise one or more elements of the group of information on communication hardware available at the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40, e.g. which kind of communication modems are available (data rates, latency, bandwidth, frequency, etc.), information on a sensor set of the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40 (cameras, radar, lidar (light/lazer detection and ranging, etc.), information on a driving capability of the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40 (speed limits, routes, driving preferences etc.), and information on an application processing power of the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40 (processing capacity, e.g. video processing capability)."), …
…
…
…
generating data sharing configuration information for the vehicle platoon according to the status information, the data sharing configuration information comprising one or more sensor data sharing strategies for the vehicle platoon (see Hehn at least [0028] "In embodiments the one or more interfaces 12, 52, may correspond to any means for obtaining, receiving, transmitting or providing analog or digital signals or information, e.g. any connector, contact, pin, register, input port, output port, conductor, lane, etc. which allows providing or obtaining a signal or information. An interface may be wireless or wireline and it may be configured to communicate, i.e. transmit or receive signals, information with further internal or external components..." [0041] "The dynamic interface will be determined by all three contributing parties: vehicles 20, 30 of the vendor/owner A, vehicles 30 of the vendor/owner B and the common backend server 10. In this embodiment each vehicle 20, 30, 40 contributes some information about its capabilities..." and [0052] "...This can be achieved by control mechanisms being active between the vehicles of the platoon. Vehicles of the platoon may exchange sensor data among each other using direct communication. The application interfaces or message interfaces used for this purpose can be defined based on the capabilities of the participating vehicles... According to an embodiment the message interfaces can be dynamically adapted to the traffic situation, the capabilities of the participants, and the properties of the platoon, e.g. size, number of vehicles route, etc...");
transmitting the data sharing configuration information to the one or more vehicles in the vehicle platoon … so that the one or more vehicles share sensor data of the one or more vehicles with the vehicle platoon according to the data sharing configuration information (see Hehn at least [0042] "For example, each vehicle 20, 30, 40 contributes information on the applications it intends to run with a corresponding vendor/owner to the back end server 10. The backend server 10 may consider its resulting overview and information on the current situation on the road. The control module 14 of the network component or backend server 10 is configured to determine information on an overall situation of the two or more vehicles on the road or in a traffic situation. Based on this information a message interface configuration can be determined for direct communication between the vehicles 20, 30, 40." and [0052] "...Vehicles of the platoon may exchange sensor data among each other using direct communication.. A heading vehicle may need/provide other information than a vehicle in the middle or at the tail end of the platoon. According to an embodiment the message interfaces can be dynamically adapted to the traffic situation, the capabilities of the participants, and the properties of the platoon, e.g. size, number of vehicles route, etc. For example, warning messages of an emergency break maneuver may be particularly provided to following vehicles at low latency, whereas the information on an emergency break maneuver may not be as delay critical for a vehicle driving ahead. Different interfaces can be configured for these scenarios.").
However, while Hehn describes the platoon vehicles capable of V2V communication, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as a form of communication which utilizes sidelink technology, Hehn does not explicitly disclose the following:
…a sidelink communication…
…the sensor parameter information comprising at least one of following information:
…whether the vehicle is allowed to share sensor data…
…a type of the sensor data that the vehicle is allowed to share, or…
…a frequency at which the vehicle shares the sensor data, indicating how often the vehicle shares the sensor data…
…a sidelink communication…
Lekutai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…a sidelink communication (see Lekutai at least [0016] "Described herein are techniques that may be used to facilitate communications between vehicles within a platoon of vehicles while minimizing a delay associated with those communications. In some embodiments, a lead vehicle transmits driving instructions using a combination of long-range and short-range communication channels. In at least some of these embodiments, the lead vehicle transmits the instructions to a remote platform using the long-range channel (e.g., over a cellular network) and simultaneously transmits those driving instructions to one or more vehicles within its vicinity via a short-range communication channel (e.g., over a WiFi connection, DSRC, Sidelink/PC5, etc.).")…
…
…
…
…
…a sidelink communication (see Lekutai at least [0016] "Described herein are techniques that may be used to facilitate communications between vehicles within a platoon of vehicles while minimizing a delay associated with those communications. In some embodiments, a lead vehicle transmits driving instructions using a combination of long-range and short-range communication channels. In at least some of these embodiments, the lead vehicle transmits the instructions to a remote platform using the long-range channel (e.g., over a cellular network) and simultaneously transmits those driving instructions to one or more vehicles within its vicinity via a short-range communication channel (e.g., over a WiFi connection, DSRC, Sidelink/PC5, etc.).")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inter-vehicle communications as disclosed by Hehn with sidelink communication such as evidenced by Lekutai with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of ensuring a reliable short-range communication channel for transferring information (see Lekutai at least [0016]).
Neither Hehn nor Lekutai explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…the sensor parameter information comprising at least one of following information:
…whether the vehicle is allowed to share sensor data…
…a type of the sensor data that the vehicle is allowed to share, or…
…a frequency at which the vehicle shares the sensor data, indicating how often the vehicle shares the sensor data…
Ganlath, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the sensor parameter information comprising at least one of following information:
…whether the vehicle is allowed to share sensor data…
…a type of the sensor data that the vehicle is allowed to share, or…
…a frequency at which the vehicle shares the sensor data, indicating how often the vehicle shares the sensor data (see Ganlath at least [0067]-[0069] “…For example, each follower vehicle may receive data from the lead vehicle at a different frequency…” and [0078] "FIG. 11 illustrates an example where vehicles 502, 504, 506, and 508 have all agreed to a contract to form a vehicle platoon. However, vehicle 504 has agreed to a service profile to receive data of lower quality. Thus, in the example of FIG. 11, the lead vehicle 502 transmits C-ACC messages to vehicle 504 at a frequency of 10 Hz and transmits C-ACC messages to vehicles 506 and 508 at a frequency of 50 Hz.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor parameter information as disclosed by Hehn with a sharing frequency such as taught by Ganlath with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of accommodating to specific requests of vehicles, providing customized platoon controls (see Ganlath at least [0068]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 8, Hehn in view of Lekutai and Ganlath teach the data sharing method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of vehicles comprise a leader vehicle, and the data sharing method is performed by the leader vehicle (see Hehn at least [0052] "...A heading vehicle may need/provide other information than a vehicle in the middle or at the tail end of the platoon…"), and the transmitting the data sharing configuration information (see Hehn at least [0052] "...Vehicles of the platoon may exchange sensor data among each other using direct communication…") comprises:
for each of the plurality of vehicles, determining a sensor data sharing strategy of the vehicle according to the data sharing configuration information (see Hehn at least [0041] "The dynamic interface will be determined by all three contributing parties: vehicles 20, 30 of the vendor/owner A, vehicles 30 of the vendor/owner B and the common backend server 10. In this embodiment each vehicle 20, 30, 40 contributes some information about its capabilities..."); and
distributing the sensor data sharing strategy of the vehicle to the vehicle (see Hehn at least [0041]-[0050] "The dynamic interface will be determined by all three contributing parties: vehicles 20, 30 of the vendor/owner A, vehicles 30 of the vendor/owner B and the common backend server 10. In this embodiment each vehicle 20, 30, 40 contributes some information about its capabilities...").
Regarding claim 11, Hehn in view of Lekutai and Ganlath teach the data sharing method according to claim 1, wherein the sensor parameter information on the vehicle comprises a type of a sensor installed on the vehicle (see Hehn at least [0041] "The dynamic interface will be determined by all three contributing parties: vehicles 20, 30 of the vendor/owner A, vehicles 30 of the vendor/owner B and the common backend server 10. In this embodiment each vehicle 20, 30, 40 contributes some information about its capabilities. The information on the communication capabilities of the mobile transceivers 20, 30, 40 (vehicles in this scenario) may comprise ... information on a sensor set of the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40 (cameras, radar, lidar (light/lazer detection and ranging, etc.), ... ").
Regarding claim 12, Hehn in view of Lekutai and Ganlath teach the data sharing method according to claim 1, wherein the sensor data sharing strategy comprises at least one of following information:
a vehicle whose sensor data needs to be shared with,
a type of the sensor data that needs to be shared, or
a frequency of sharing the sensor data (see Ganlath at least [0078] "FIG. 11 illustrates an example where vehicles 502, 504, 506, and 508 have all agreed to a contract to form a vehicle platoon. However, vehicle 504 has agreed to a service profile to receive data of lower quality. Thus, in the example of FIG. 11, the lead vehicle 502 transmits C-ACC messages to vehicle 504 at a frequency of 10 Hz and transmits C-ACC messages to vehicles 506 and 508 at a frequency of 50 Hz.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the sensor parameter information as disclosed by Hehn with a sharing frequency such as taught by Ganlath with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Hehn in view of Lekutai and Ganlath teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, Hehn discloses the following:
…a memory operable to store computer-readable instructions (see Hehn at least [0059]-[0060] "…Herein, some embodiments are also intended to cover program storage devices, e.g., digital data storage media, which are machine or computer readable and encode machine-executable or computer-executable programs of instructions where said instructions perform some or all of the steps of methods described herein...")…
…a processor circuitry operable to read the computer-readable instructions (see Hehn at least [0060] "...When provided by a processor, the functions may be provided by a single dedicated processor, by a single shared processor, or by a plurality of individual processors, some of which may be shared...")…
Regarding claim 16, Hehn in view of Lekutai and Ganlath teach the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the plurality of vehicles comprise a leader vehicle (see Hehn at least [0052] "Another application may relate to a platoon of vehicles... Vehicles of the platoon may exchange sensor data among each other using direct communication... A heading vehicle may need/provide other information than a vehicle in the middle or at the tail end of the platoon..."), and the processor circuitry is configured to:
transmit the data sharing configuration information to the leader vehicle, so that the leader vehicle parses the data sharing configuration information to obtain sensor data sharing strategies for each of the plurality of vehicles respectively (see Lekutai at least Fig 3 and [0045] "Upon receiving the instructions from the lead vehicle via signal 304, the platooning platform 116 may identify at least one additional vehicle 308 to transmit the instructions to via a long-range communication channel via a signal 310. In some cases, the at least one additional vehicle 308 may be a lead vehicle of a group of vehicles within a platoon. The additional vehicle may then transmit the instructions to another vehicle via a signal 312 (1) transmitted over a short-range communication channel, which are then relayed to another vehicle via a signal 312 (2). In this manner, the instructions may be transmitted from vehicle to vehicle."), and for each of plurality of vehicles other than the leader vehicle, distributes a sensor data sharing strategy of the vehicle to the vehicle (see Hehn at least [0041]-[0050] "The dynamic interface will be determined by all three contributing parties: vehicles 20, 30 of the vendor/owner A, vehicles 30 of the vendor/owner B and the common backend server 10. In this embodiment each vehicle 20, 30, 40 contributes some information about its capabilities... In other words, the vehicles may provide information to the network component 10, for example information on communications hardware available, a sensor set available, driving capability, application processing power, etc.… Given all input, the backend server 10 creates the additional interface (determines an according message interface configuration) The backend server 10 conveys the interface to the two vehicles 20, 30.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the leader vehicle as disclosed by Hehn with data organization and transmission such as further taught by Lekutai with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of allowing efficient communication between vehicles of a platoon (see Lekutai at least [0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Hehn in view of Lekutai and Ganlath teach the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the processor circuitry is configured to:
receive the status information of the vehicle via the leader vehicle in the vehicle platoon (see Hehn at least [0041] "…In this embodiment each vehicle 20, 30, 40 contributes some information about its capabilities. The information on the communication capabilities of the mobile transceivers 20, 30, 40 (vehicles in this scenario) may comprise one or more elements of the group of information on communication hardware available at the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40, e.g. which kind of communication modems are available (data rates, latency, bandwidth, frequency, etc.), information on a sensor set of the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40 (cameras, radar, lidar (light/lazer detection and ranging, etc.), information on a driving capability of the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40 (speed limits, routes, driving preferences etc.), and information on an application processing power of the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40 (processing capacity, e.g. video processing capability). In other words, the vehicles may provide information to the network component 10, for example information on communications hardware available, a sensor set available, driving capability, application processing power, etc."), the status information of the vehicle being transmitted to the leader vehicle by the vehicle (see Hehn at least [0041] "…In this embodiment each vehicle 20, 30, 40 contributes some information about its capabilities. The information on the communication capabilities of the mobile transceivers 20, 30, 40 (vehicles in this scenario) may comprise one or more elements of the group of information on communication hardware available at the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40, e.g. which kind of communication modems are available (data rates, latency, bandwidth, frequency, etc.), information on a sensor set of the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40 (cameras, radar, lidar (light/lazer detection and ranging, etc.), information on a driving capability of the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40 (speed limits, routes, driving preferences etc.), and information on an application processing power of the mobile transceiver 20, 30, 40 (processing capacity, e.g. video processing capability). In other words, the vehicles may provide information to the network component 10, for example information on communications hardware available, a sensor set available, driving capability, application processing power, etc.").
Regarding claim 18, Hehn in view of Lekutai and Ganlath the analogous material of that in claim 8 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Russell et al. (US-2020/0396782) teaches communication, including sensor data sharing, amongst vehicles within a platoon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663