At 7DETAILED 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
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are presented as currently amended claims.
No claims are presented as original claims.
No claims are newly presented.
Claim 7 is newly cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claims 1 and 12-13 are interpreted as if a colon was present at the following location: “ . . . based on at least one of : an attribute of information included in the first wireless signal, traffic properties of a road on which the first moving body is located, and an environmental state of the road; . . ..”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (JP 4798383 B2) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20200120459 A1) (the combination of which is referenced as “Combination Ando” hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Ando discloses a roadside communication device comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a first wireless signal from a first moving body; (Ando: ¶ 012; roadside device that first receives the information from the vehicle) at least one memory configured to store instructions; at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: (Ando: ¶ 043; CPU 81 controls the navigation program 21p and data stored in the HDD 21) determine a notification target range, (Ando: ¶ 067; a predetermined range centered on the roadside device such as, for example, a radius of 5 km.) based on at least one of an attribute of information included in the first wireless signal, traffic properties of a road on which the first moving body is located, and an environmental state of the road; (Ando: ¶ 081; a range necessary for collision avoidance support set for each roadside unit. As shown in FIG. 8, on a general road, in order to avoid a collision, an information distribution area is set within a certain range from an intersection where the vehicle is approaching. In the case of a narrow road such as a mountain road as shown in FIG. 9, passing support is also taken into consideration, and the information distribution area is not limited to a certain range, but may be a connection point between a narrow road and a wide road or a next intersection) . . . and a transmitter configured to: transmit a second wireless signal including the information, to a wireless terminal within the notification target range (Ando: ¶ 068; device 250 performs transmission, relay, and creation of distribution information and distribution route information based on the received information) (Ando: ¶ 092; If the transmission mode is the broad transmission mode, the process proceeds to step S025 to determine whether or not the node extracted from the queue is included in the notification range, that is, the information distribution area. When the node extracted from the queue is included in the information distribution area (S025: Yes), the processing of the above-described step S027 is executed.) . . .
Ando does not explicitly teach: . . . specify a relay target range other than a transmission range in which the first moving body is capable of transmitting the first wireless signal, within the notification target range; and determine whether a second moving body is present within the relay target range; . . . and when the second moving body is not present within the relay target range, not transmit the second wireless signal; however, Nguyen does teach:
. . . processing of specifying a relay target range other than a transmission range in which the first moving body (Nguyen: [506][750]) is capable of transmitting the first wireless signal, within the notification target range; (Nguyen: ¶ 060; In V2X/V2V/D2D communication systems, as shown in FIG. 4, each UE may only be interested in packets within a certain range. For example, UE 404 may be interested in packets within an area 440, e.g., packets 416, 417, and 418 from UEs 406, 407 and 408.)processing of determining whether a second moving body (Nguyen: [504][750’]) is present within the relay target range; (Nguyen: ¶ 071; base station may determine whether to include each of the packets in a combined packet based on whether the location associated with a corresponding packet received by the base station is within an area. For example, the area may be based on a radius size surrounding a certain location.). . . processing of, when the second moving body is not present within the relay target range, not transmitting the second wireless signal. (Nguyen: ¶ 060; total number of packets of interest may be reduced due . . . area constraint(s). )
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nguyen with the teachings of Ando because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “better coverage range due to possible lower frequency [and] better path-loss” (Nguyen: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 12, Ando discloses a roadside communication method comprising:
receiving a first wireless signal from a first moving body; (Ando: ¶ 012; roadside device that first receives the information from the vehicle) determining a notification target range, (Ando: ¶ 067; a predetermined range centered on the roadside device such as, for example, a radius of 5 km.) based on at least one of an attribute of information included in the first wireless signal, traffic properties of a road on which the first moving body is located, and an environmental state of the road; and (Ando: ¶ 081; Medium: For . . . small-scale traffic congestion,) transmitting a second wireless signal including the information, to a wireless terminal within the notification target range (Ando: ¶ 068; device 250 performs transmission, relay, and creation of distribution information and distribution route information based on the received information) (Ando: ¶ 092; If the transmission mode is the broad transmission mode, the process proceeds to step S025 to determine whether or not the node extracted from the queue is included in the notification range, that is, the information distribution area. When the node extracted from the queue is included in the information distribution area (S025: Yes), the processing of the above-described step S027 is executed.) . . .
Ando does not explicitly teach: . . . specifying a relay target range other than a transmission range in which the first moving body is capable of transmitting the first wireless signal, within the notification target range; determining whether a second moving body is present within the relay target range; . . . ; and when the second moving body is not present within the relay target range, not transmitting the second wireless signal; however, Nguyen does teach:
. . . specifying a relay target range other than a transmission range in which the first moving body (Nguyen: [506][750])is capable of transmitting the first wireless signal, within the notification target range; (Nguyen: ¶ 060; In V2X/V2V/D2D communication systems, as shown in FIG. 4, each UE may only be interested in packets within a certain range. For example, UE 404 may be interested in packets within an area 440, e.g., packets 416, 417, and 418 from UEs 406, 407 and 408.)determining whether a second moving body (Nguyen: [504][750’])is present within the relay target range; (Nguyen: ¶ 071; base station may determine whether to include each of the packets in a combined packet based on whether the location associated with a corresponding packet received by the base station is within an area. For example, the area may be based on a radius size surrounding a certain location.). . . when the second moving body is not present within the relay target range, not transmitting the second wireless signal(Nguyen: ¶ 060; total number of packets of interest may be reduced due . . . area constraint(s). )
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nguyen with the teachings of Ando because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “better coverage range due to possible lower frequency [and] better path-loss” (Nguyen: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 13, Ando discloses a:
non-transitory computer readable recording medium recording a program causing an information processing device to execute: processing of (Ando: ¶ 043; CPU 81 controls the navigation program 21p and data stored in the HDD 21) receiving a first wireless signal from a first moving body; (Ando: ¶ 012; roadside device that first receives the information from the vehicle) processing of determining a notification target range, (Ando: ¶ 067; a predetermined range centered on the roadside device such as, for example, a radius of 5 km.) based on at least one of an attribute of information included in the first wireless signal, traffic properties of a road on which the first moving body is located, and an environmental state of the road; . . . (Ando: ¶ 081; a range necessary for collision avoidance support set for each roadside unit. As shown in FIG. 8, on a general road, in order to avoid a collision, an information distribution area is set within a certain range from an intersection where the vehicle is approaching. In the case of a narrow road such as a mountain road as shown in FIG. 9, passing support is also taken into consideration, and the information distribution area is not limited to a certain range, but may be a connection point between a narrow road and a wide road or a next intersection) processing of transmitting a second wireless signal including the information, to a wireless terminal within the notification target range. (Ando: ¶ 068; device 250 performs transmission, relay, and creation of distribution information and distribution route information based on the received information) (Ando: ¶ 092; If the transmission mode is the broad transmission mode, the process proceeds to step S025 to determine whether or not the node extracted from the queue is included in the notification range, that is, the information distribution area. When the node extracted from the queue is included in the information distribution area (S025: Yes), the processing of the above-described step S027 is executed.) . . .
Ando does not explicitly teach: . . . processing of specifying a relay target range other than a transmission range in which the first moving body is capable of transmitting the first wireless signal, within the notification target range; processing of determining whether a second moving body is present within the relay target range; . . . and processing of, when the second moving body is not present within the relay target range, not transmitting the second wireless signal.; however, Nguyen does teach:
. . . specify a relay target range other than a transmission range in which the first moving body (Nguyen: [506][750]) is capable of transmitting the first wireless signal, within the notification target range; (Nguyen: ¶ 060; In V2X/V2V/D2D communication systems, as shown in FIG. 4, each UE may only be interested in packets within a certain range. For example, UE 404 may be interested in packets within an area 440, e.g., packets 416, 417, and 418 from UEs 406, 407 and 408.)and determine whether a second moving body (Nguyen: [504][750’]) is present within the relay target range; (Nguyen: ¶ 071; base station may determine whether to include each of the packets in a combined packet based on whether the location associated with a corresponding packet received by the base station is within an area. For example, the area may be based on a radius size surrounding a certain location.). . . and when the second moving body is not present within the relay target range, not transmit the second wireless signal. (Nguyen: ¶ 060; total number of packets of interest may be reduced due . . . area constraint(s). )
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nguyen with the teachings of Ando because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of “better coverage range due to possible lower frequency [and] better path-loss” (Nguyen: ¶ 005).
Claims 2-5, 10-11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Ando as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20200267522 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Ando does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range, based on at least one of the attribute of the information, the traffic properties, and the environmental state; however, Lee does teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range, based on at least one of the attribute of the information, the traffic properties, and the environmental state. (Lee: ¶ 037; the application layer 215 may configure a long communication range when a signal message is transmitted through emergency light due to sudden stop.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando's and Lee's base methods are similar wireless vehicle communication improvement methods however, the combined method would predictably be improved by setting the target range in reference to the traffic properties because doing so would more carefully tune the range to the specific need instead of transmitting the signal beyond its needed range which would improve Machine-to-Machine performance (Lee: ¶ 004).
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Lee further teaches:
wherein the attribute is an importance degree or an urgency degree of the information, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the importance degree or the urgency degree. (Lee: ¶ 037; the application layer 215 may configure a long communication range when a signal message is transmitted through emergency light due to sudden stop.).
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Lee further teaches:
wherein the attribute is a notification destination of the information, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the notification destination. (Lee: ¶ 036; application layer 215 may determine communication ranges by negotiating communication distances from target UEs 120 and 240 to which the UEs 110 and 210 intend to transmit a message)
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Lee further teaches:
wherein the traffic properties are a regulation speed of the road or a statistic value of a speed of a vehicle traveling on the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the regulation speed or the statistic value. (Lee: ¶ 037; the application layer 215 may determine communication ranges, based on the current speeds (e.g., 15 km/h or 100 km/h) of the UEs 110 and 210 that intend to transmit a message.)
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Ando teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Ando does not teach:
wherein the transmitter is further configured to change a transmission range of the second wireless signal according to the relay target range; however, Lee does teach:
wherein the transmitter is further configured to change a transmission range of the second wireless signal according to the relay target range. (Lee: ¶ 049; communication range values respectively for message types that the SE layer 20 manages may have different communication range values for the same message types, depending on the areas. The following [Table 5], [Table 6], and [Table 7] show examples of communication range values respectively for message types).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando's and Lee's base methods are similar wireless vehicle communication improvement methods however, the combined method would predictably be improved because allowing the transmission unit adjust the range allows the transmission unit to account for areas where different communication ranges are applied (Lee: ¶ 049) such as an area with higher or lower power requirements.
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Ando teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Ando does not explicitly teach:
wherein the transmitter is further configured to change a transmission range of the second wireless signal according to the notification target range; however, Lee does teach:
wherein the transmitter is further configured to change a transmission range of the second wireless signal according to the notification target range. (Lee: ¶ 036; application layer 215 may determine the communication range for each message using various methods. For example, the application layer 215 may measure distances from surrounding UEs 120 and 240 to which the UEs 110 and 210 intend to transmit a message).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando's and Lee's base methods are similar wireless vehicle communication improvement methods however, the combined method would predictably be improved by setting the target range in reference to the notification range because doing so would more carefully tune the range to the specific need instead of transmitting the signal beyond its needed range which would improve Machine-to-Machine performance (Lee: ¶ 004).
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Lee further teaches:
wherein the attribute is a notification destination of the information, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the notification destination. (Lee: ¶ 036; application layer 215 may determine communication ranges by negotiating communication distances from target UEs 120 and 240 to which the UEs 110 and 210 intend to transmit a message)
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Lee further teaches:
wherein the traffic properties are a regulation speed of the road or a statistic value of a speed of a vehicle traveling on the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the regulation speed or the statistic value. (Lee: ¶ 037; the application layer 215 may determine communication ranges, based on the current speeds (e.g., 15 km/h or 100 km/h) of the UEs 110 and 210 that intend to transmit a message.)
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Lee further teaches:
wherein the traffic properties are a regulation speed of the road or a statistic value of a speed of a vehicle traveling on the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the regulation speed or the statistic value. (Lee: ¶ 037; the application layer 215 may determine communication ranges, based on the current speeds (e.g., 15 km/h or 100 km/h) of the UEs 110 and 210 that intend to transmit a message.)
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 14. Lee further teaches:
wherein the traffic properties are a regulation speed of the road or a statistic value of a speed of a vehicle traveling on the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the regulation speed or the statistic value. (Lee: ¶ 037; the application layer 215 may determine communication ranges, based on the current speeds (e.g., 15 km/h or 100 km/h) of the UEs 110 and 210 that intend to transmit a message.)
Claims 6, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Ando in view of Lee as applied to claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively above, and further in view of Kirimura (JP 2010048797 A).
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Ando does not explicitly teach:
wherein the environmental state is weather or an illuminance of the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the weather or the illuminance; however, Kirimura does teach:
wherein the environmental state is weather or an illuminance of the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the weather or the illuminance. (Kirimura: ¶ 048; conceivable to adjust the position of the download target point and the start point and end point . . . there are three types of data: traffic jam information, weather information, and map information. Map information is received as far as possible, traffic jam information. When setting to receive as close as possible, each priority is set as traffic jam information = low, weather information = medium, and map information = high.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Kirimura with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando's and Kirimura's base methods are similar wireless vehicle communication improvement methods however, the combined method would predictably be improved because “If the communication environment is not taken into account, there is a possibility that more optimal data download means cannot be used.” (Kirimura: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Ando does not explicitly teach:
wherein the environmental state is weather or an illuminance of the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the weather or the illuminance; however, Kirimura does teach:
wherein the environmental state is weather or an illuminance of the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the weather or the illuminance. (Kirimura: ¶ 048; conceivable to adjust the position of the download target point and the start point and end point . . . there are three types of data: traffic jam information, weather information, and map information. Map information is received as far as possible, traffic jam information. When setting to receive as close as possible, each priority is set as traffic jam information = low, weather information = medium, and map information = high.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Kirimura with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando's and Kirimura's base methods are similar wireless vehicle communication improvement methods however, the combined method would predictably be improved because “If the communication environment is not taken into account, there is a possibility that more optimal data download means cannot be used.” (Kirimura: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 19, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 4. Ando does not explicitly teach:
wherein the environmental state is weather or an illuminance of the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the weather or the illuminance; however, Kirimura does teach:
wherein the environmental state is weather or an illuminance of the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the weather or the illuminance. (Kirimura: ¶ 048; conceivable to adjust the position of the download target point and the start point and end point . . . there are three types of data: traffic jam information, weather information, and map information. Map information is received as far as possible, traffic jam information. When setting to receive as close as possible, each priority is set as traffic jam information = low, weather information = medium, and map information = high.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Kirimura with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando's and Kirimura's base methods are similar wireless vehicle communication improvement methods however, the combined method would predictably be improved because “If the communication environment is not taken into account, there is a possibility that more optimal data download means cannot be used.” (Kirimura: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 20, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Lee teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 5. Ando does not explicitly teach:
wherein the environmental state is weather or an illuminance of the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the weather or the illuminance; however, Kirimura does teach:
wherein the environmental state is weather or an illuminance of the road, and the at least one processor is further configured to change the notification target range according to the weather or the illuminance. (Kirimura: ¶ 048; conceivable to adjust the position of the download target point and the start point and end point . . . there are three types of data: traffic jam information, weather information, and map information. Map information is received as far as possible, traffic jam information. When setting to receive as close as possible, each priority is set as traffic jam information = low, weather information = medium, and map information = high.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Kirimura with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando's and Kirimura's base methods are similar wireless vehicle communication improvement methods however, the combined method would predictably be improved because “If the communication environment is not taken into account, there is a possibility that more optimal data download means cannot be used.” (Kirimura: ¶ 005).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Ando as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220015167 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Kim teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Ando does not teach:
further comprising: a monitor configured to monitor the relay target range, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether the second moving body is present within the relay target range, based on a monitoring result of the monitor; however, Kim does teach:
further comprising: a monitor configured to monitor the relay target range, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether the second moving body is present within the relay target range, based on a monitoring result of the monitor. (Kim: ¶ 250; a timer may start upon detecting that the second wireless device is out of the minimum required communication range. The transmission with the second wireless device may be resumed upon detecting that the second wireless device is in the minimum required communication range before expiry of the timer. That the second wireless device is in the minimum required communication range may be detected by receiving, from the second wireless device, information that that the second wireless device is in the minimum required communication range. Alternatively, the transmission with the second wireless device may be released upon expiry of the timer.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Kim because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving service quality (Kim: ¶ 002).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Ando as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20200267522 A1) and Tsai (US 20220174655 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Ando teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Ando does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to specify the transmission range, based on a location of the first moving body and propagation properties of the first wireless signal.
However, Lee teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to specify the transmission range, based on a location of the first moving body (Lee: ¶ 036; application layer 215 may determine the communication range for each message using various methods. For example, the application layer 215 may measure distances from surrounding UEs 120 and 240 to which the UEs 110 and 210 intend to transmit a message) (Lee: ¶ 053; UE is at ‘Location 1’, the SE layer 220 may configure a communication range value as 1 . . . Alternatively, the SE layer 220 may change the communication range value to 50 m using [Table 7] and configure, as 1, the communication range value corresponding to 50 m using [Table 1]. For example, when the message type received from the application layer 215 is PSID 1 and a UE is at ‘Location 2’)
and Tsai teaches:
and propagation properties of the first wireless signal. (Tsai: ¶ 069; [0169] According to a disclosed embodiment, a V2X UE uses multi-band interfaces to communicate with different V2X UEs that participate in the V2X service. Improved communication ranges can be achieved by using, e.g., different transmission power levels and beamwidth from different panels. Hence, an embodiment according to this disclosure can provide two different coverages for V2X communication. For example, when two vehicles only have available FR1 SL (e.g., when they are out of FR2 communication range), they could use FR 1 to assist beamforming for FR 2 SL according to an embodiment.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Lee and Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, all three methods relate to improved mobile communications; however, the combined method would predictably be improved because Lee’s teachings would more carefully tune the range to the specific need instead of transmitting the signal beyond its needed range which would improve Machine-to-Machine performance (Lee: ¶ 004) and Tsai’s teachings would consider the limitations of various wireless bands transmission distances, thus improving reliability and safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed June 26, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) claim interpretation is persuasive and the interpretation is not applied.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. ¶ 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 13 which newly incorporate elements of previous rejected claim 7 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. Applicant argues that
Kim describe the first wireless device communicating with the second wireless device "outside of a minimum required range", but Kim does not disclose the configuration and effects related to the roadside communication device as described in claim 7. Namely, Kim does not disclose "at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:...specify a relay target range other than a transmission range in which the first moving body is capable of transmitting the first wireless signal, within the notification target range; and determine whether a second moving body is present within the relay target range," and "a transmitter configured to: transmit a second wireless signal including the information, to a wireless terminal within the notification target range; and when the second moving body is not present within the relay target range, not transmit the second wireless signal." These specific features of which ranges to send or not send the signal are not disclosed in Kim. (Applicant’s Arguments filed June 26, 2025, pgs. 9-10).
Newly applied art Nguyen et al. (US 20200120459 A1) teaches a system wherein an RSU defines a target to rebroadcast messages based upon the needs specified by another vehicle in the system (information included in the first wireless signal). Nguyen teaches that even though RSU [402] can reach vehicle [409], vehicle [404]’s request to be informed of data in range [440] prevents the RSU [402] from rebroadcasting the data received from [409] (Nguyen: ¶ 060; packets of interest may be reduced due to . . . area constraint(s) ; [610][611]). Consequently, Applicant's arguments with respect to obviousness of newly amended claims 1, 12, and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
413
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
670
395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Chang et al (US 20220141834 A1) which discloses four different mechanisms (e.g., solutions) to assist a leader of a group of wireless communication devices in deciding when to switch between groupcast and unicast transmissions.
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 CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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 on 571-272-1206571-272-1206[ 5 ]. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights