DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 15 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.
Further, as noted within the rejection below, applicant’s claim amendments have introduced numerous new issues now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 5, recites “a server” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if this is meant to reference the “server” of line 1 or a different server.
Claim 10, line 6, recites “receiving messages from a plurality of vehicles via the communication interface” which renders the claim indefinite as the “communication interface” is recited as being configured for wireless communication with “a vehicle” in line 3. The relationship between the “plurality of vehicles” and “a vehicle” is unclear.
Claim 10, lines 9-10, recite “position information of the vehicle” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear which vehicle is being referenced. Claim 10 previously recites “a vehicle” in line 3, “a plurality of vehicles” in line 6, and “the respective vehicle” in line 8, as it is unclear which previous vehicle instance is intended.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the stationary road side unit" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
While it appears “road side unit” is meant to reference the RSU acronym, this connection has not been previously established within the claim as the claim previously only recites “RSU”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the deviation data " in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this is meant to reference the previous “position deviation data”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the database" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the deviation data" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this is meant to reference the previous “position deviation data”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the stationary road side unit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
While it appears “road side unit” is meant to reference the RSU acronym, this connection has not been previously established within the claim as the claim previously only recites “RSU”.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (Lin) (US 2019/0232972) (of record) in view of Lattin (US 11,828,861) (of record) and Whyte et al. (Whyte) (US 2022/0256333) (of record).
As to claim 15, while Lin discloses a method for a server, comprising:
receiving messages from a plurality of vehicles (vehicles reporting devices with inaccurate sensor data; paragraph 28, 30, 47, 93), each of the messages being based on a first sensor value detected by a sensor of a stationary RSU (RSUs may include a sensor set to report position data; paragraph 47, 93, 109) and a correlated second sensor value detected by a sensor of the respective vehicle (accuracy information determined via variance between local sensor data and received data; paragraph 138, 157, 176, 183),
storing position deviation data in the database (paragraph 28, 30, 101, 120) based on the received messages (paragraph 79, 83).
While Lin discloses the server selectively initiating corrective actions of the stationary roadside unit based on the deviation data (paragraph 28, 30, 47), they fail to specifically disclose calculating a mean position deviation based on the deviation data and selectively initiating recalibrating the stationary road side unit based upon comparing the mean position deviation with a predefined threshold.
In an analogous art, Lattin discloses a system for determining the accuracy of operational data collected by a road side unit (column 2, line 56-column 3, line 3, column 5, lines 18-44) which will calculate a mean position deviation based on collected deviation data (column 16, line 16-45) and selectively initiating a remedial action of the stationary road side unit based upon comparing the mean position deviation with a predefined threshold (column 18, line 12-26) so as to calculate the confidence in the devices accuracy utilizing a gathered collection of messages of sufficient sample size (column 15, line 19-53, column 16, line 16-45).
Additionally, in an analogous art, Whyte discloses a method performed by a vehicle communication system server (Fig. 5; paragraph 137-150) wherein the server receives messages regarding the status of RSU sensors behavior (misbehavior report and sensor data for V2X system participant, including an RSU, Fig. 5, paragraph 41, 43, 137-140) and in response selectively initiates recalibration of the RSU (server transmitting remediation instruction, such as sensor recalibration, to the system participant; paragraph 148-150) so as to enable the server to immediately remediate or mitigate the impact of the reported misbehavior condition (paragraph 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s system to include calculating a mean position deviation based on the deviation data and selectively initiating remediation based upon comparing the mean position deviation with a predefined threshold, as taught in combination with Lattin, for the typical benefit of utilizing a known and existing method for analyzing deviation data gathered from plural different device messages (column 15, line 19-53, column 16, line 16-45).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin and Lattin’s system to include selectively initiating recalibrating the RSU, as taught in combination with Whyte, for the typical benefit of enabling the immediate remediation or mitigation of the impact of the reported misbehavior condition (paragraph 150).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James R Sheleheda whose telephone number is (571)272-7357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm CST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at (571) 272-3982. 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.
/James R Sheleheda/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424