DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 14 August 2025. Therein, Applicant amended claims 3; Applicant did not cancel or add any new claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the elements to a proper obviousness rejection have not been met. Examiner does not agree.
First, Applicant argues that the datasets are not established as claimed. Applicant’s specification briefly addresses the term stating “The application 16 and/or the telematics unit 18 may be configured to exchange information, data, etc. with each other via the hybrid platform 14, which may be generically referred to as datasets” (see para. 0028). Thus, examiner interprets the term “datasets” to include “information or data”. Applying this definition to the claims, the teaching of Chang is still relevant, because information or data is being sent/addressed to and from vehicles. In response to point (a)(ii) by Applicant, Applicants contention regarding a paragraph from the conclusion section is misinterpreted. It means that once a citation is applied, a citation cannot be viewed as outside of and exclusive to the other teachings within that cited reference. The entire reference is now part of applicant’s knowledge. For example, if paragraph 45 is cited as teaching a claimed element in an Office action and applicant subsequently argues that paragraph 45 does not explicitly disclose the relevant limitation, examiner may point to paragraph 56 that completely discloses the limitation at issue (but was not cited as relevant in the office action). Because of applicant’s implicit knowledge of the entire reference, the newly cited paragraph of the same reference is still proper grounds of rejecting the limitation. This principle of implicit knowledge is well accepted. It does not transfer the burden of obviousness to the Applicant, it merely prevents a myopic interpretation of a single passage or paragraph as the only relevant teaching that can be used as teaching evidence of claimed features.
Thirdly, Applicant asserts in (a)(iii) that the prior art of record does not disclose “each dataset being commonly addressed for wireless communication to a vehicle”.
As defined in para. 0165, a vehicle is considered a mobile access point. And in that paragraph, it states that “this disclosure provides a solution for optimizing network (e.g., vehicle network, etc.) utilization by providing the means for an external program running on another node (e.g., a Cloud server or computer, a Mobile AP, a Fixed AP, a Network Controller (NC), etc.) to specify the type and rate of data that is sent from a vehicle (e.g., a Mobile AP thereof).”. This passage outlines that a vehicle can send data to a mobile access point, which is also another vehicle. So as Chang teaches that data can be sent/addressed to mobile access points, this includes being addressed to a vehicle. Relatedly, as para. 0187 teaches data push/pull operations, data that is pushed from a vehicle may be sent to a mobile access point, which is defined to include another vehicle, and therefore, is addressed for wireless communication to a vehicle.
This reasoning is further demonstrated by paragraph 0159, the datasets are taught to be sent “from (or to)” the vehicles, and again, teaches the vehicles are mobile access points. Moreover, the entire disclosure of Chang is replete with teachings about network optimization for sending data to and from mobile access points. Figures 8-11 illustrate communication between mobile access points and therefore, datasets addressed to a vehicle. When a vehicle is interpreted as being a mobile access point, it becomes clear that Chang teaches “each dataset being commonly addressed for wireless communication to a vehicle”. While the cited paragraphs provide a small snapshot of the concept being applied, the entire disclosure of Chang is integrated within the reasoning for applying the teaching. And because the Applicant has implicit knowledge of the entire reference, the teachings and applied reasoning clearly reject the claimed limitation.
Next, in the (a)(Iv) assertion, Applicant argues that the motivation is not proper to make the proposed modification because Examiner’s presented motivation is in error and “the claims do not require “the mobile access points of vehicles autonomously determine the manner in which data is communicated” but rather the back office controller” (see Pg. 9). Applicant also asserts that no “reasoned statements have been articulated to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
Applicant is attacking the required “motivation statement” that justifies an obviousness rejection. The way it is structured is a Best Practice by the Office. Examiner’s motivation statement represents the “reasoned statement” to support the legal conclusion of obviousness and KSR and TSM tests. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the statement does not need to be exactly on point with applicant’s claimed invention. The statement only needs to be reasonably related to the technology and/or problem of Applicant’s claimed invention. And given that it was taken directly from the text of the reference, It is an explicit and reasoned analysis within the same technology and related to the problem presented by the claimed invention; and therefore cannot be conclusory.
It is also noted that asserting that the examiner must explain how a proposed modification is made is unpersuasive as it is not a requirement of obviousness. Further, Examiner is not required to provide detailed analysis of how the teaching would be modified to contribute to any autonomous behavior. Examiner only needs to provide a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the teaching reference. Examiner fulfilled this obligation.
The obviousness rejection fulfills all required criteria. The rejection is maintained.
Lastly, Applicant also asserted that features of claims 12 and 18 have not been properly rejected. Specifically, it is argued that the rejection did not address the limitation of “a hybrid platform having an Internet of Things (IoT) message broker controller configured for communicating IoT messages over an IoT network, a Wi-Fi message controller configured for communicating Wi-Fi messages over a Wi-Fi network, and a cellular controller configured for communicating cellular messages over a cellular network”. These arguments in (b)(i), have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, due to the amendment of claim 3, a second Non-Final cannot be issued; a necessitated updating of one ground of rejection permits revision of the remaining grounds of rejection.
However, Examiner is not acknowledging a revised ground of rejection for claims 12 and 18. No reference has been changed. The reasoning has not changed. Citations have been updated, but updated citations in the same reference do not amount to a new ground of rejection.
The above features emphasized by applicant are also the same elements defined in claim 5 to claim 7. Thus, the features of claims 12 and 18 have been addressed in claims 5-7. Accordingly, the necessary information was presented and applied to the elements of claim 12 and 18, just not in claim 12 and 18. The MPEP states that every limitation of a claim must be addressed, but it does not say every limitation of a claim must be addressed within the rejection for that claim. They merely must be addressed. In the case at hand, Examiner addressed the features of claim 12 and 18 by addressing claims 5-7. The claims were properly rejected and a second Non-Final Office action will not be issued (this is in light of the amendment to claim 3; if claim 3 was not amended, a Non-Final rejection would have been re-issued).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 5-9, 12, 13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0045336). For claim 1, Chang discloses a system for multimode vehicle messaging, comprising: a hybrid platform (see para. 0153) having a plurality of radio access points configured for supporting multimode messaging with a vehicle according to differing types of wireless radio communications (see paras. 0037, 0043, 0171), each of the radio access points supporting communications over a corresponding radio network (see paras. 0037, 0043, 0171); a back office controller (see paras. 0076-0077; see also paras. 0165, 0187, network controller, 0102-0103) configured for receiving a plurality of datasets from an application, each dataset being commonly addressed for wireless communication to a vehicle (see paras. 0165, 0187, any teaching of mobile AP is considered a vehicle), the back office controller configured for: determining operating characteristics for the radio networks (see para. 0028, NOC or NC performs disclosed functions); determining multimode information for each of the datasets based on the operating characteristics (see para. 0175); and includes the multimode information to each of the datasets prior to relaying the datasets to the hybrid platform (see paras. 0169-0172). Change does not explicitly disclose “adding” the multimode information to each dataset. However, Chang teaches that the return request message 833 has certain information regarding the desired transmission manner but the request message 831 does not contain (see para. 0170). Chang teaches that additional information is contained in message 833. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that the desired manner information would have been “added” to the request message by the AP based on the motivation to improve a vehicle communication system in which the mobile access points of vehicles autonomously determine the manner in which data is communicated through the communication network (see para. 0004).
Continuing with the claim, Chang further discloses the multimode information specifying synchronization and routing information to be used at the hybrid platform in identifying and controlling a corresponding one of the radio access points to wirelessly communicate the corresponding one of the datasets to the vehicle (see paras. 0170-172); and a telematics unit configured for use onboard the vehicle to wirelessly receive the datasets over each one of the radio networks operating with the hybrid platform (see paras. 0188, 0204).
With reference to claim 5, Chang further discloses at least one of the radio access points is an Internet of Things (IoT) message broker controller (see para. 0162, 0079, operating characteristics).
Regarding claim 6, Chang further teaches at least one of the radio access points is a Wi-Fi message controller (see paras. 0036, 0039, 0041, operating characteristics).
Referring to claim 7, Chang further teaches at least one of the radio access points is a cellular controller (see para. 0071-0072, 0041, operating characteristics).
With regards to claim 8, Chang further teaches the back office controller is configured to determine the operating characteristics from a simulation generated for the hybrid platform (see para. 0032, 0062-0064), the simulation defining representational behaviors to simulate functionality and behavior for the radio networks (see para. 0032, 0160, 0041, 0079).
For claim 9, Chang further discloses the back office controller is configured to determine the operating characteristics from network performance measurements generated from monitoring performance of the radio networks when communicating additional datasets to additional vehicles (see para. 0160, 0041, 0079, 0062-0064).
Referring to claims 12, 13 and 18, the claims define subject matter that is substantially similar to that of claims 1 and 5-7. Therefore, claims 12, 13 and 18 are rejected based on the combined citations and reasoning provided above for claims 1 and 5-7.
Referring to claim 19, the claim defines subject matter that is substantially similar to that of claim 8. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 8.
Referring to claim 20, the claim defines subject matter that is substantially similar to that of claim 9. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 9.
Claims 2, 4, 10, 11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0045336) as applied to claims 1, 12 and 18 above, and further in view of Meuck, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0385865).
For claim 2, Chang does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from Meuck discloses the multimode information includes a data code for each of the datasets (see paras. 0043, 0048), the data code specifying one or more processing schemes to be employed at the corresponding radio access point when communicating the corresponding dataset (see paras. 0043, 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Chang with the teachings of Meuck based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve edge computing, network communication, and communication system implementations, and in particular, to connected and computer-assisted (CA)/autonomous driving (AD) vehicles, Internet of Vehicles (IoV), Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (see para. 0002).
With regards to claim 4, Meuck further teaches the multimode information includes a network code for each of the datasets, the network code specifying a type of modulation to communicate the corresponding dataset (see paras. 0043, 0048, Table 3).
For claim 10, the claim defines subject matter that is substantially similar to that of claims 5-7 and 2-4. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claims 5-7 and 2-4.
Referring to claims 11 and 15, Chang further discloses the back office controller is configured for selecting the network code for each of the datasets based on one or more of a cost, a time sensitivity, a data rate, and a quality of service associated with the corresponding dataset (see paras. 0088, 0105, 0189).
Regarding claim 14, Chang further discloses a scheme code specifying one or more processing schemes to be employed at the corresponding radio access point when communicating the corresponding dataset (see paras. 0043, 0048). Meuck further teaches a packet identifier for specifying fragmentation details for the corresponding dataset (see paras. 0398, 0506, packetizing). Chang does not explicitly disclose an access point code for specifying the dataset path. However, given that Chang teaches routing in the request message, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that the access point code would have been part of the dataset based on the motivation to improve a vehicle communication system in which the mobile access points of vehicles autonomously determine the manner in which data is communicated through the communication network (see para. 0004).
With reference to claim 16, the claim defines subject matter that is substantially similar to that of claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 8.
For claim 17, the claim defines subject matter that is substantially similar to that of claim 9. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 9.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0045336) and Meuck, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0385865), as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Avetisian, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0283004).
Referring to claim 3, Meuck further discloses the multimode information includes a packet identifier for each of the datasets, the packet specifying fragmentation details for the corresponding dataset (see paras. 0398, 0506, packetizing). Meuck does not explicitly disclose the remaining features.
A teaching from Avetisian discloses a multimodal data transmission that relates to a vehicle unlock (see paras. 0056-0058, 0065). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Chang to include the teachings of Avetisian based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve and take advantage of relatively recent improvements in vehicle system design to incorporate buses that permit selective intercommunication between different vehicle modules, subsystems, and systems, and between vehicles and the Internet to further permit IoT technology to be incorporated into vehicles (see para. 0031).
Conclusion
Examiner also stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited and specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting to reference in any way. Taking the entire reference as a whole the Examiner contends that the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
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 ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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 at (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights