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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1, 3, and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patsiokas et a. (US. Pub. No. 2017/0032402 A1; hereinafter “Patsiokas”) in view of Rao et al. (US. 9,893,825 B1; hereinafter “Rao”)
Regarding claim 1, Patsiokas teaches an audio data sharing method for radio broadcasting systems (See Patsiokas, fig. 18) that comprises:
sharing audio data (see Patsiokas, fig. 9, 915, audio content, para. [0104]) using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication and vehicle-to- infrastructure (V2I) unit communication between units in a plurality of vehicles and an infrastructure unit (see Patsiokas, fig. 9, 935,930) in a low reception area for radio broadcasting, by means of tuner leasing (see Patsiokas, fig. 18, para. [0265]); and
forming a framework for message sharing between the units in the plurality of vehicles (see Patsiokas, fig. 18, para. [0265-268]).
Patsiokas is silent to teaching that sharing data in a low reception area for radio broadcasting.
In the same field of endeavor, Rao teaches a method comprising sharing data in a low reception area for radio broadcasting (see Rao, fig. 3, 310, 312, col. 14, lines 25-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Patsiokas with the teaching of Rao in order to improve audio source while traveling (see Rao, col. 1, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Patsiokas and Rao teaches the audio data sharing method for radio broadcasting systems, as claimed in claim 1, wherein when a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles requests to lease out a tuner to play a particular station, tuning a vehicle unit of the vehicle or the infrastructure unit to the requested particular station and sending an audio signal having the audio data of the same to the network (See Patsiokas, fig. 18, para. [0265-268]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Patsiokas and Rao teaches the audio data sharing method for radio broadcasting systems, as claimed in claim 1, wherein the V2V and V2I communication in valid signal areas sends information of extra tuners that can be used by other vehicles (See Patsiokas, fig. 18, para. [0265-268]);
at least two vehicles of the plurality of vehicles receiving this information can either request for a current tuned frequency if they were also listening to a same channel or can request to lease out an available tuner to tune to a required channel (See Patsiokas, fig. 18, para. [0265-268]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Patsiokas and Rao teaches the audio data sharing method for radio broadcasting systems, as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
a transmitting vehicle unit of the units of the plurality of vehicles or the infrastructure unit will have a list of how many vehicles receive its data with a vehicle identification of each of the respective receiving vehicles (See Patsiokas, para. [0068]); and
the transmitting vehicle unit of the units of the plurality of vehicles or infrastructure unit will continue to send the audio data until a last receiving vehicle of the receiving vehicles requests to stop, wherein a stop request will be a request message (See Patsiokas, para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Patsiokas and Rao teaches the audio data sharing method for radio broadcasting systems, as claimed in claim 3, further comprising receiving a tuner request at the vehicle unit from at least two vehicles of the plurality of vehicles (See Patsiokas, fig. 18, para. [0265-268]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Patsiokas and Rao teaches the audio data sharing method for radio broadcasting systems, as claimed in claim 9, further comprising
determining a first requested vehicle of the at least two vehicles that sent the tuner request (See Patsiokas, fig. 18, para. [0265-268]);
assigning the first requested vehicle to the tuner (See Patsiokas, fig. 18, para. [0265-268]); and
sending an error message to the other of the at least two vehicles (See Patsiokas, fig. 18, para. [0265-268]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Patsiokas and Rao teaches the audio data sharing method for radio broadcasting systems, as claimed in claim 7, further comprising sending an audio signal with the audio data of a currently tuned channel from a sending vehicle unit to a network if a request for the currently tuned channel is received at a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles (See Patsiokas, fig. 18, para. [0265-268]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Patsiokas and Rao teaches the audio data sharing method for radio broadcasting systems, as claimed in claim 7, further comprising tuning a first requested vehicle of the plurality of vehicles to a requested station and sending an audio signal with the audio data of the same to a network if the first requested vehicle requests to lease out a tuner to play the requested station (See Patsiokas, fig. 18, para. [0265-268]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Patsiokas and Rao teaches the audio data sharing method for radio broadcasting systems, as claimed in claim 12, further comprising receiving an error message at other vehicles of the plurality of vehicles aside from the first requested vehicle if the unit receives a tuner request from more than one vehicle (see Patsiokas, para. [0211-212]).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patsiokas and Rao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bajwa et al. (US. Pub. No. 2017/0104824 A1; hereinafter “BAJWA”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Patsiokas and Rao teaches the audio data sharing method for radio broadcasting systems, as claimed in claim 1.
The combination of Patsiokas and Rao is silent to teaching that wherein a structure of a V2V/V2I radio information frame used between the units of the plurality of vehicles and the infrastructure unit includes a device identification (200), a tuned station (201), a broadcast standard (202), and an extra tuner availability (203).
In the same field of endeavor, BAJWA teaches a method wherein a structure of a V2V/V2I radio information frame used between the units of the plurality of vehicles and the infrastructure unit includes a device identification (200), a tuned station (201), a broadcast standard (202), and an extra tuner availability (203) (see BAJWA, fig. 2, 210A,B,C,D, para. [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Patsiokas and Rao with the teaching of BAJWA in order to improve vehicular communication and infrastructure (see BAJWA, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Patsiokas and Rao teaches the audio data sharing method for radio broadcasting systems, as claimed in claim 1.
The combination of Patsiokas and Rao is silent to teaching that wherein a structure of a V2V/V2I request frame sent between two or more of the units of the plurality of vehicles includes a receiver device identification (300), a transmitter device identification (301), a request type (302), and station information (303).
In the same field of endeavor, BAJWA teaches a method wherein a structure of a V2V/V2I request frame sent between two or more of the units of the plurality of vehicles includes a receiver device identification (300), a transmitter device identification (301), a request type (302), and station information (303) (see BAJWA, fig. 2, 210A,B,C,D, para. [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Patsiokas and Rao with the teaching of BAJWA in order to improve vehicular communication and infrastructure (see BAJWA, para. [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14 and 15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “request and response” and “leasing” and “protocol”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Patsiokas with the teaching of Rao in order to improve audio source while traveling (see Rao, col. 1, lines 55-60).
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 WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648