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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/22/2024 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 2/9/2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watfa et al. (US-2020/0228948 hereinafter, Watfa).
Regarding claim 1, Watfa teaches a track information exchange (Fig. 15 [1504] i.e. components within RSU) apparatus of a first roadside device (Fig. 12 [RSU 1]), comprising:
a memory (Fig. 31C [44 & 46]) configured to store programming instructions; (Page 3 [0049], Page 26 [0220] and Page 28 [0232] “FIG. 31C is a block diagram of an example hardware/software architecture of a node of a network, such as one of the vehicles, RSU, or devices illustrated in FIGS. 9A-16, 18, 19, 21, or 27, which may operate as an M2M server, gateway, device, or other node in an M2M network such as that illustrated in FIGS. 31A or 31B. As shown in FIG. 31C, the node 30 may include a processor 32, non-removable memory 44, removable memory 46, a speaker/microphone 38, a keypad 40, a display, touchpad, and/or indicators 42, a power source 48, a global positioning system (GPS) chipset 50, and other peripherals 52.”) and
at least one processor (Fig. 31C [32]) coupled to the memory (Fig. 31C [44 & 46]) and configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus (Page 28 [0232-0233]) to:
receive a vehicle service request message from a vehicle (Fig. 12 [1]), wherein the vehicle service request message comprises verification information of the vehicle; (Page 10 [0105] “the request message (from the vehicles) and the response message from the RSU may be a PC5 message or a ND message as described above”, the referenced “above” see Page 8 [0090] “At the D2D-RSU 904, a solicitation message for RSU info may be received, from a plurality of vehicles, for instance the vehicle 902. The D2D-RSU 904 may verify if the vehicle is authorized to solicit this request, before responding.” And Fig. 9B [3] “PC5”)
determine, based on the verification information, that verification of the vehicle is successful; (Page 8 [0090] “At the D2D-RSU 904, a solicitation message for RSU info may be received, from a plurality of vehicles, for instance the vehicle 902. The D2D-RSU 904 may verify if the vehicle is authorized to solicit this request, before responding.”)
receive first track information from a second roadside device (Fig. 12 [8]), wherein the first track information is of a first traffic participant (non-functional descriptive material as it is not referred to again in the claim and no specific action occurs because of the descriptive material1) and indicates a first track that is outside a first coverage area of the first roadside device; (Fig. 12 [8] and Pages 11-12 [0118] “the target RSU sends the determined RSU Info to the source RSU. The target RSU also includes a list of areas for which it has valid RSU Info, or it may also include the RSU Info for these areas”)
send a track forwarding message (Fig. 12 [12]) to the vehicle (Fig. 12 [1202]) when the verification of the vehicle is successful (Page 8 [0090] “The D2D-RSU 904 may verify if the vehicle is authorized to solicit this request, before responding.”), wherein the track forwarding message indicates the first track. (Fig. 12 [12] “Area 2” and Pages 11-12 [0118] “At 12, the source RSU may send the response message (e.g., PC5 or ND) to the vehicle 1202. The response message may contain the RSU Info for the requested areas). The vehicle 1202 can then perform the operations for using the RSU Info as described with reference to FIG. 9A at 4.”)
Regarding claim 18, Watfa teaches a track information exchange apparatus of a vehicle (Fig. 31C [30] note: the structure is used to describe both RSC and vehicle information exchange apparatuses, see Page 28 [0232]), comprising:
a memory (Fig. 31C [44 & 46]) storing programming instructions; (Page 28 [0233]) and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus to:
send a first vehicle service request message to a first roadside device (Fig. 12 [1]), wherein the first vehicle service request message comprises verification information of the vehicle; (Page 10 [0105] “the request message (from the vehicles) and the response message from the RSU may be a PC5 message or a ND message as described above”, the referenced “above” see Page 8 [0090] “At the D2D-RSU 904, a solicitation message for RSU info may be received, from a plurality of vehicles, for instance the vehicle 902. The D2D-RSU 904 may verify if the vehicle is authorized to solicit this request, before responding.” and Fig. 9B [3] “PC5”)
receive track information from the first roadside device, wherein the track information indicates a track outside a first coverage area of the first roadside device; (Fig. 12 [12] Area 1, 2 and 3 see Pages 11-12 [0118] “the target RSU sends the determined RSU Info to the source RSU. The target RSU also includes a list of areas for which it has valid RSU Info, or it may also include the RSU Info for these areas”) and
send the track information to the first vehicle when the verification information of the vehicle indicates verification of the vehicle is successful. (Page 12 [0123] and Page 8 [0090] “The D2D-RSU 904 may verify if the vehicle is authorized to solicit this request, before responding.”)
Regarding claim 19, Watfa teaches wherein the track information indicates one or more of: a traffic participant identifier, a sensing time, a traffic participant type, a traffic participant appearance, a traffic participant model, a traffic participant license plate number, a location, a moving speed or a moving direction. (Page 12 [0122] “a vehicle may receive a request to report a history of RSU Info. The vehicle may verify if the request includes a list of areas and/or a time window, starting from which, the detected RSU Info should be sent back. The vehicle may filter RSU Info based on area and time as described”)
Regarding claim 20, Watfa teaches sending beyond-line-of-sight sensing range indication information to the first roadside device (Page 12 [0121] “When requesting RSU Info (or history of RSU Info since a time of detection may also be saved and included in the response), a vehicle may also indicate the area for which it is interested in getting RSU Info”), and wherein the beyond-line-of-sight sensing range indication information indicates a beyond-line-of-sight sensing range requested by the vehicle. (Page 8 [0089] “vehicle’s expected destination” and Page 11 [0110] “the source RSU may contact the RSRC 1204 if it does not know or does not have any information about potential target RSUs (e.g., for a given area). The source RSU may alternatively send the request to the RSRC if the required number of areas exceeds a certain threshold”)
Regarding claim 21, Watfa teaches send, when a service device of the vehicle is the first roadside device and after the vehicle enters a second coverage area of a second roadside device, a second vehicle service request message to the second roadside device, and wherein the second vehicle service request message comprises the verification information of the vehicle. (Page 8 [0090] “At the D2D-RSU 904, a solicitation message for RSU info may be received, from a plurality of vehicles, for instance the vehicle 902. The D2D-RSU 904 may verify if the vehicle is authorized to solicit this request, before responding”, Fig. 15 [1] and Fig. 18 [9])
Regarding claim 22, Watfa teaches a track information exchange apparatus of a second roadside device (Fig. 12 [RSU 2]), comprising:
a memory (Fig. 31C [44 & 46]) storing programming instructions; (Page 3 [0049], Page 26 [0220] and Page 28 [0232] “FIG. 31C is a block diagram of an example hardware/software architecture of a node of a network, such as one of the vehicles, RSU, or devices illustrated in FIGS. 9A-16, 18, 19, 21, or 27, which may operate as an M2M server, gateway, device, or other node in an M2M network such as that illustrated in FIGS. 31A or 31B. As shown in FIG. 31C, the node 30 may include a processor 32, non-removable memory 44, removable memory 46, a speaker/microphone 38, a keypad 40, a display, touchpad, and/or indicators 42, a power source 48, a global positioning system (GPS) chipset 50, and other peripherals 52.”) and
at least one processor (Fig. 31C [32]) coupled to the memory (Fig. 31C [44 & 46]) and configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus (Page 28 [0232-0233]) to send first track information of a first traffic participant to a first roadside device, (Fig. 12 [8])
wherein the first track information indicates a first track outside a coverage area of the first roadside device. (Fig. 12 [8] “Area 2”)
Regarding claim 23, Watfa teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus to:
receive a first track request message from the first roadside device (Fig. 12 [4]), wherein the first track request message requests track information from the second roadside device; (Fig. 12 [4]) and
send a first track response message to the first roadside device in response to the first track request message, wherein the first track response message comprises the first track information. (Fig. 12 [8])
Regarding claim 24, Watfa teaches receive a vehicle service request message from a vehicle, wherein the vehicle service request message comprises verification information of the vehicle; (Fig. 12 [1]) and
determine, based on the verification information, that verification of the vehicle is successful. (Page 8 [0090] “At the D2D-RSU 904, a solicitation message for RSU info may be received, from a plurality of vehicles, for instance the vehicle 902. The D2D-RSU 904 may verify if the vehicle is authorized to solicit this request, before responding.”)
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al. (US-2018/0245938 hereinafter, Song).
Regarding claim 25, Song teaches a track information exchange apparatus of a third roadside device (Fig. 1 [122]), comprising:
a memory storing programming instructions; (Fig. 12 [1202]) and
at least one processor (Fig. 12 [1201]) coupled to the memory and configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus to receive a verification service request from a vehicle (Fig. 1 [132]), wherein the vehicle service request message comprises verification information of the vehicle; (Page 17 [0133])
determine, based on the verification message and the second verification notification message, that the verification of the vehicle is successful; (Page 17 [0133]) and
send a verification notification message to a first roadside device, wherein the verification notification message indicates that the verification of the vehicle is successful. (Page 17 [0133] “or forwards the terminal registration acknowledgement by using the first roadside navigation apparatus”)
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.
Claims 2-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watfa in view of Hayashi (US-2010/0130242).
Regarding claim 2, Watfa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting send a vehicle verification request message to a first server, wherein vehicle verification request message comprises the verification information;
receive a first verification notification message from the first server, wherein the first verification notification message indicates whether the verification of the vehicle is successful; and
further determine, based on the first verification notification message, that the verification of the vehicle is successful.
In an analogous art, Hayashi teaches a road-side device (Fig. 1 [20]) in a communication system (Abstract) that includes sending a vehicle verification request message to a first server, wherein vehicle verification request message comprises the verification information; (Page 2 [0029] “The road-side device 20 is connected with the small-sized authentication server 30, and asks the small-sized authentication server 30 to authenticate a vehicle concerned.”)
receive a first verification notification message from the first server, wherein the first verification notification message indicates whether the verification of the vehicle is successful; (Fig. 1 [5] “Notification of Result of Authentication”) and
further determine, based on the first verification notification message, that the verification of the vehicle is successful. (Page 2 [0035-0036] as opposed to Page 2 [0037] “does not show a match”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Watfa after modifying it to incorporate the ability to utilize an authentication server to authenticate a vehicle of Hayashi since it enables a small-sized authentication server to be disposed at a location close to the road-side device in order to complete the authentication process at a higher speed. (Hayashi Page 3 [0054])
Regarding claim 3, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches receive service vehicle information from a first server, wherein the service vehicle information indicates a plurality of vehicles that have service receiving permission; (Hayashi Page 3 [0053] and Page 4 [0063] “When a handover of any of the vehicles is in progress, the road-side device 20 forwards the vehicle-mounted device information and others thereabout to the nearby road-side device 50 being the destination of the handover”)
determine, based on the verification information and the service vehicle information, whether the vehicle belongs to the vehicles; (Hayashi Page 4 [0063-0064]) and
further determine, in response to the vehicle belonging to the vehicles, that the verification of the vehicle is successful. (Hayashi Page 4 [0063])
Regarding claim 4, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus to send a vehicle service response message to the vehicle (Fig. 1 [6]) and wherein the vehicle service response message indicates the verification of the vehicle is successful. (Hayashi Page 2 [0035-0036] as opposed to Page 2 [0037] “does not show a match”)
Regarding claim 5, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches wherein the service vehicle information is index information of the vehicles that have the service receiving permission (Hayashi Page 5 [0085] “the small-sized authentication server 30 reads the vehicle-mounted device information about the vehicle-mounted device in the vehicle from the database 33 for transmission to the road-side device 20, for example. The information is then transferred to the nearby road-side device 50 from the processing unit 25 of the road-side device 20 via the information transmitting unit 27”), wherein the track forwarding message is a periodic non-repetitive message (non-functional descriptive material because it is not clear how the “periodic non-repetitive message” type matters to any step, see footnote above), and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions to further cause the track information exchange apparatus to:
receive, from the first server, a verification failure message indicating that the verification of the vehicle is a failure; (Hayashi Page 2 [0037] “does not show a match”) and
stop sending the track forwarding message to the vehicle based on the verification failure message. (Hayashi Fig. 11 [S35])
Regarding claim 6, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus to send a vehicle service response message to the vehicle (Hayashi Fig. 1 [6]), and wherein the vehicle service response message indicates the verification of the vehicle is a failure. (Hayashi Page 2 [0037] additionally, this is considered non-functional descriptive material because it is not clear what action occurs at the vehicle because of a failure notification, see footnote above)
Regarding claim 8, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus to:
receive a first handover request message from a fourth roadside device (Hayashi Page 5 [0085]), wherein the first handover request message request handing over a service device of the vehicle from the fourth roadside device to the first roadside device; (Hayashi Page 5 [0085-0086]) and
send a first handover response message to the fourth roadside device is in response to the first handover request message, wherein the first handover response message indicates that the first device becomes the service device of the vehicle. (Hayashi Page 4 [0063-0064] “When a handover of any of the vehicles is in progress, the road-side device 20 forwards the vehicle-mounted device information and others thereabout to the nearby road-side device 50 being the destination of the handover” and “With the completion of the authentication process, the notification of completion is provided to the road-side device 20 via the nearby road-side device 50”)
Regarding claim 9, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches further send the first handover response message to the fourth roadside device when obtaining second track information of the vehicle within the first coverage area or when the vehicle is located in an intersection area between the first coverage area and a second coverage area of the fourth roadside device. (Hayashi Page 5 [0083-0085 and 0088] “the vehicle-mounted device 10 enters into the communication area of the nearby road-side device 50, which is adjacent to the communication area of the road-side device 20 (S31)”)
Regarding claim 10, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches wherein the first handover response message comprises first feature information of the vehicle; (Hayashi Page 5 [0085] “The road-side device 20 being the source of the handover then transfers the vehicle-mounted device information about the vehicle-mounted device 10 to the nearby road-side device 50 (S33)”) and
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus to:
obtain second feature information within the first coverage area; (Hayashi Page 5 [0085] “the small-sized authentication server 30 reads the vehicle-mounted device information about the vehicle-mounted device in the vehicle from the database 33 for transmission to the road-side device 20, for example. The information is then transferred to the nearby road-side device 50 from the processing unit 25 of the road-side device 20 via the information transmitting unit 27”)
match the second feature information with the first feature information to obtain a matching result; (Page 5 [0076] “The judging unit 32 then determines whether or not the lastly-accessed road-side device information provided as such shows a match with the road-side device information about the road-side device 20 (S22)” and Page 6 [0092-0093]) and
send the first handover response message to the fourth roadside device based on the matching result. (Hayashi Page 4 [0063-0064] “When a handover of any of the vehicles is in progress, the road-side device 20 forwards the vehicle-mounted device information and others thereabout to the nearby road-side device 50 being the destination of the handover” and “With the completion of the authentication process, the notification of completion is provided to the road-side device 20 via the nearby road-side device 50”)
Regarding claim 11, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches wherein the first roadside device is located within a third coverage area of a first server, wherein the fourth roadside device is located within a fourth coverage area of a second server, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus to:
receive, from the first server, an address of the fourth roadside device and topology information of the fourth roadside device; (Watfa Fig. 12 [9] “At 9, the RSRC 1204 sends the determined RSU Info to the source RSU. The RSRC 1204 may also include a list of RSUs (and their identities, addresses, etc) per area that can be contacted for future requests”) and
send the first handover response message to the fourth roadside device based on the address and the topology information. (Hayashi Page 4 [0063-0064] “When a handover of any of the vehicles is in progress, the road-side device 20 forwards the vehicle-mounted device information and others thereabout to the nearby road-side device 50 being the destination of the handover” and “With the completion of the authentication process, the notification of completion is provided to the road-side device 20 via the nearby road-side device 50”)
Regarding claim 12, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus to:
send a first track request message (Watfa Fig. 12 [4]) to the second roadside device (Watfa Fig. 12 [RSU 2]), wherein the first track request message requests the first track information from the second roadside device; (Watfa Page 11 [0116] “The request may include the area for which the information is required. The source RSU may also include a list of areas for which the source RSU contains valid RSU Info, or it may contain the RSU Info itself. The request also may contain address(es) that the target RSU can/should use to send the response to this request.”) and
receive a first track response message from the second roadside device in response to the first track request message, wherein the first track response message comprises the first track information. (Watfa Pages 11-12 [0118] and Fig. 12 [8])
Regarding claim 13, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the track information exchange apparatus to:
determine a beyond-line-of-sight sensing range; (Watfa Page 8 [0089] “vehicle’s expected destination” and Page 11 [0110] “the source RSU may contact the RSRC 1204 if it does not know or does not have any information about potential target RSUs (e.g., for a given area). The source RSU may alternatively send the request to the RSRC if the required number of areas exceeds a certain threshold”) and
determine the second roadside device based on the beyond-line-of-sight sensing range and a distance between a plurality of roadside devices, wherein the roadside devices comprise the first roadside device and the second roadside device, and wherein the beyond-line-of-sight sensing range is larger than the first coverage area. (Watfa Page 10 [0110-0113] i.e. an RSU has a list of neighboring RSUs, their coverage area and can determine if the destination area is not covered by an RSU in its list, thereby being beyond-line-of-sight)
Regarding claim 14, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches obtain second track information of a second traffic participant (Watfa Fig. 19 [Pedestrian and 10]), wherein the second track information indicates a second track; (Watfa Page 19 [0177] “At 10, in accordance with the illustrated example, the pedestrian starts transmitting ND messages, and includes the service ID”) and
send the second track information to a fifth roadside device. (Hayashi Page 4 [0063] “the road-side device 20 forwards the vehicle-mounted device information and others thereabout to the nearby road-side device 50 being the destination of the handover”)
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 12, but performed with a different roadside device. The Examiner views this as being analogous to performing the same steps as cited above in claim 12, in a looping process.
Regarding claim 16, Watfa in view of Hayashi teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the traffic information exchange apparatus to send a third verification notification message to a sixth roadside device, and wherein the third verification notification message indicates that the verification of the vehicle is successful. (Hayashi Page 4 [0063] “Considering that because the road-side device 20 or the small-sized authentication server 30 stores the road-side device information about a plurality of nearby road-side devices, for example, alternatively, a comparison may be made with the lastly-accessed road-side device information received using such road-side device information, and the vehicle-mounted device information may be transmitted only to any of the nearby road-side devices, i.e., nearby road-side device 50, showing an information match.”)
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 8. Note: the perspective is swapped from that of claim 8, but the messages are the same.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Watfa and Hayashi.
Regarding claim 26, Song teaches the limitations of claim 26 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting receive an address and topology information of the first roadside device from the third server; and
further send the verification notification message to the first roadside device based on the address and the topology information.
In an analogous art, Watfa teaches a track information exchange (Fig. 15 [1504] i.e. components within RSU) apparatus of a first roadside device (Fig. 12 [RSU 1]) that includes receiving an address and topology information of the first roadside device from the third server. (Fig. 12 [9] “At 9, the RSRC 1204 sends the determined RSU Info to the source RSU. The RSRC 1204 may also include a list of RSUs (and their identities, addresses, etc) per area that can be contacted for future requests”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Song after modifying it to incorporate the ability to send address and topology information of Watfa since it enables providing contact information for devices further away from the roadside device to the vehicle for faster connections while the vehicle is travelling at high speeds. (Watfa Pages 8 and 11 [0087 and 0110])
Song in view of Watfa differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting send the verification notification message to the first roadside device based on the address and the topology information.
In an analogous art, Hayashi teaches a road-side device (Fig. 1 [20]) in a communication system (Abstract) that includes sending a vehicle verification request message to a first server, wherein vehicle verification request message comprises the verification information (Page 2 [0029] “The road-side device 20 is connected with the small-sized authentication server 30, and asks the small-sized authentication server 30 to authenticate a vehicle concerned.”) that includes
further send the verification notification message to the first roadside device based on the address and the topology information. (Hayashi Page 4 [0063-0064] “When a handover of any of the vehicles is in progress, the road-side device 20 forwards the vehicle-mounted device information and others thereabout to the nearby road-side device 50 being the destination of the handover” and “With the completion of the authentication process, the notification of completion is provided to the road-side device 20 via the nearby road-side device 50”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Song in view of Watfa after modifying it to incorporate the ability to send a verification message to a device based on address and topology information of Hayashi since it enables the previous roadside device to remove information from the database knowing when the vehicle has moved to another area. (Hayashi Page 5 [0086])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watfa in view of Misawa et al. (US-2016/0112201 hereinafter, Misawa).
Regarding claim 7, Watfa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting receive a second verification notification message from a third roadside device wherein the second verification notification message indicates that the verification of the vehicle is successful; and
further determine, based on the verification message and the second verification notification message, that the verification of the vehicle is successful.
In an analogous art, Misawa teaches a data authentication system (Abstract) that includes receive a second verification notification message from a third roadside device wherein the second verification notification message indicates that the verification of the vehicle is successful; (Abstract “a history of second authentication information of communication data which was received in the past from another communication device and which includes first authentication information, distribution information, and the second authentication information and an authentication processing unit that verifies, on the basis of the first authentication information of new communication data being newly received communication data, authenticity of the second authentication information of the new communication data”) and
further determine, based on the verification message and the second verification notification message, that the verification of the vehicle is successful. (Abstract and Claim 7 “verify freshness of the new communication data”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Watfa after modifying it to incorporate the ability to utilize two verification messages from two devices to determine that the verification is success of Misawa since it enables comparing previously receiving authentication data with newer authentication data to verify that they both match, thereby saving in the amount of memory required. (Misawa Page 1 [0004])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2022/0230545 to Yoshikawa which discloses a roadside communication system.
US-2003/0191583 to Uhlmann which discloses a vehicle based navigation system that includes communication with a remote database
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
1 The Applicant is reminded that structure defines how an apparatus differs from prior art apparatuses and when no difference in structure is defined, the assumption is made that the prior art structure meets the limitations.
The Examiner will not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious). See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential), aff' d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight unless the printed matter is functionally related to the substrate on which the printed matter is applied.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). This printed matter doctrine is not strictly limited to “printed” materials. Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032. More specifically, “a claim limitation is directed to printed matter ‘if it claims the content of information.' ” Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032 (quoting In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In method cases, the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Prosecution Insights