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 . Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1-2 and 12-13 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
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 their 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 Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 reads “…system .” but should instead read --system[[ ]].--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 recites “the directed sub-network comprising: at least one driver vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include another driver vehicle between the at least one driver vehicle and the first vehicle; at least one possible misbehaving vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include any driver vehicle between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle”. However, in dependent claims 10-11 and in the specification at paragraph [0022] the driver vehicle may be different types of vehicles. If the misbehaving vehicle, the first/critical vehicle, or the floating vehicle are the driver vehicle then it is entirely unclear what the directed paths are. For example, if the first/critical vehicle is a driver vehicle, then how can a directed path be defined between the first/critical vehicle and itself? How are the directed paths defined if the first/critical vehicle is a driver vehicle, if the misbehaving vehicle is a driver vehicle, or if the floater vehicle is a driver vehicle? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such the directed sub-network comprises: at least one driver vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include another driver vehicle between the at least one driver vehicle and the first vehicle; and/or at least one possible misbehaving vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include any driver vehicle between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle. The at least one directed path in each instance is dependent upon which vehicle is the driver vehicle. For example, if the first vehicle is a driver vehicle then the directed sub-network comprises: at least one possible misbehaving vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle (that is a driver vehicle) that does not include any driver vehicle between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle (driver vehicle). If the misbehaving vehicle is a driver vehicle then the directed sub-network comprises: at least one driver vehicle (a misbehaving vehicle) having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include another driver vehicle (possibly the misbehaving vehicle) between the at least one driver vehicle (possibly the misbehaving vehicle) and the first vehicle. Claim 12 recites similar limitations and is therefore rejected and interpreted similarly.
Claim 1 recites “the directed sub-network comprising… any floating vehicles on the at least one directed path between the at least one driver vehicle and the first vehicle; and any floating vehicles on the at least one directed path between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle”. The term “any” in the context of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are a required part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear if the claim is even requiring that the sub-network comprise any floating vehicles. Does the broadest reasonable interpretation cover the possibility that no floating vehicles are between the at least one driver vehicle and the first vehicle and that no floating vehicles are between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that the sub-network comprises any number of (zero or more) floating vehicles between the at least one driver vehicle and the first vehicle and that any number of (zero or more) floating vehicles between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle. Claim 12 recites similar limitations and is therefore rejected and interpreted similarly.
Claim 1 recites “at least one directed path” in multiple instances and it is unclear if these are referring to the same directed path or different ones. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that they are either referring to the same or different directed paths. Claim 12 recites similar limitations and is therefore rejected and interpreted similarly.
Claim 1 recites “implementing a proportional-integral controller” and it is unclear if this is referring to one of the proportional-integral controllers previously introduced or a different one. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to one of the proportional-integral controllers.
Claim 1 recites “the first possible misbehaving vehicle” however previously the claim is referring to the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle. It is unclear if the claim is not limiting to a single possible misbehaving vehicle or not. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle.
Claim 3 recites “the subset of the plurality of vehicles” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this referring to a new subset of vehicles, the plurality of vehicles, or something else? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to one or more of the plurality of vehicles. Claim 14 recites similar limitations and is therefore rejected and interpreted similarly.
Claim 3 recites “the first directed communication path” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Is this referring to at least one of the directed paths introduced in claim 1, or is this referring to a different path? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to either a first directed communication path or the at least one directed path. Claim 14 recites similar limitations and is therefore rejected and interpreted similarly.
Claim 5 recites “the subset of the plurality of vehicles” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this referring to a new subset of vehicles, the plurality of vehicles, or something else? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to one or more of the plurality of vehicles. Claim 15 recites similar limitations and is therefore rejected and interpreted similarly.
Claim 5 recites “the second directed communication path” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Is this referring to at least one of the directed paths introduced in claim 1, or is this referring to a different path? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to either a second directed communication path or the at least one directed path. Claim 15 recites similar limitations and is therefore rejected and interpreted similarly.
Claim 9 recites “the proportional-integral controller is implemented to the possible misbehaving vehicle”. However, in claim 1 the proportional-integral controllers are implemented to the driver vehicles. Is the claim now requiring that at least one of the driver vehicles is also one of the misbehaving vehicles? If one of the driver vehicles is also the misbehaving vehicle then how are the directed paths now defined? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that the proportional-integral controls are implemented to the driver vehicles. Claim 19 recites similar limitations and is therefore rejected and interpreted similarly.
Claim 10 recites “the proportional-integral controller is implemented to a neighbor vehicle to the possible misbehaving vehicle”. However, in claim 1 the proportional-integral controllers are implemented by the driver vehicles. Is the claim now requiring that at least one of the driver vehicles is also neighboring to one of the misbehaving vehicles? If one of the driver vehicles is also neighboring to one of the misbehaving vehicles then how are the directed paths now defined? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that the proportional-integral controls are implemented to the driver vehicles. Claim 20 recites similar limitations and is therefore rejected and interpreted similarly.
Claim 11 recites “the subset of the plurality of vehicles” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this referring to a new subset of vehicles, the plurality of vehicles, or something else? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to one or more of the plurality of vehicles.
Claim 12 recites “implement, via a driver vehicle…” and it is unclear which driver vehicle is being claimed. Is this intended to refer to at least one of the at least one driver vehicles of the sub-network? Or is this referring to a different driver vehicle? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to at least one of the driver vehicles of the sub-network.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 1 and 12 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasseur (US 2012/0307624 A1) in view of Yildirim (‘On Control of Multiagent Systems in the Presence of a Misbehaving Agent’ a copy of which was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated 12/7/2023 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Vasseur discloses a method for networked multiagent system control, comprising: identifying a plurality of possible misbehaving nodes among a plurality of nodes in the networked multiagent system, the plurality of nodes being represented as a directed network (see Figs. 4, 5A, [0033-0034, 0042, 0046, 0049, 0054] – identify misbehaving nodes in the network… directed acyclic graph (DAG) of nodes); determining a directed sub-network for a first node of the plurality of nodes, the directed sub-network comprising: at least one possible misbehaving node having at least one directed path to the first node (see at least Fig. 5A); any floating nodes on the at least one directed path between the at least one possible misbehaving node and the first node (see Fig. 5A, [0022, 0056-0057, 0072-0074] – root node or head-end node… set of ‘M’ neighbors… the number of ‘M’ neighbors (e.g., a subset of M) that are reporting node 35 as misbehaving… less weight is given to those neighbors that must communicate through node 35… node 34 may also observe neighbors… NMS may receive communicated information 520 from a detecting node regarding a misbehaving node in the network); and suppressing an effect of the first possible misbehaving node on the networked multiagent system ([0058-0061] – isolate the misbehaving node).
Vasseur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the nodes are vehicles; the plurality of vehicles comprising a first subset of driver vehicles that execute proportional-integral controllers and comprising a second subset of floating vehicles that is distinct from the first subset of driver vehicles; at least one driver vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include another driver vehicle between the at least one driver vehicle and the first vehicle; at least one possible misbehaving vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include any driver vehicle between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle; any floating vehicles on the at least one directed path between the at least one driver vehicle and the first vehicle; and any floating vehicles on the at least one directed path between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle; and implementing a proportional-integral controller by at least one of the at least one driver vehicles of the directed sub-network for suppressing an effect of the first possible misbehaving vehicle on the networked multiagent system.
Yildirim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the nodes are vehicles (page 456 - vehicles); the plurality of vehicles comprising a first subset of driver vehicles that execute proportional-integral controllers (page 461 – driver agents) and comprising a second subset of floating vehicles that is distinct from the first subset of driver vehicles (page 457 – floating (i.e., follower) agents); at least one driver vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include another driver vehicle between the at least one driver vehicle and the first vehicle; at least one possible misbehaving vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include any driver vehicle between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle (page 456, page 459 Fig. 1 and page 460 – control input may be applied to the misbehaving agent… node 4 is the driver agent and node 16 is the misbehaving agent… paths from node 16 to nodes 8, 10, 12, and 15 have no other driver agent therebetween… select the driver agent to be located as close as possible to the misbehaving agent); any floating vehicles on the at least one directed path between the at least one driver vehicle and the first vehicle (page 459 Fig. 1); and any floating vehicles on the at least one directed path between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle (page 459 Fig. 1); and implementing a proportional-integral controller by at least one of the at least one driver vehicles of the directed sub-network for suppressing an effect of the first possible misbehaving vehicle on the networked multiagent system (page 456 – in the presence of an agent subject to a disturbance (i.e., misbehaving agent), we investigate the stability and the steady-state value of the multiagent system when a proportional-integral controller is applied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Yildirim into the invention of Vasseur with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving the stability of the multiagent system when limited resources are available in order to maximize the number of agents having zero steady-state error (Yildirim – page 456). Providing feedback to the misbehaving node to achieve a steady state of the network is an improvement over isolating the misbehaving node because isolating the node reduces the nodes and therefore ability of the network to perform as intended. Providing feedback to the misbehaving node is more effective because that node can still be functional in the network. Additionally, both Vasseur and Yildririm teach that multiagent networks are a topic in a wide array of applications (Yildirim – page 456 and Vasseur – [0002, 0017]), with Yildirim specifically mentioning various types of vehicles (Yildirim – page 456). Therefore, applying Vasseur’s method to the application where the nodes are vehicles would yield predictable results. Finally, Yildirim specifically mentions selecting the driver agent to be located as close as possible to the misbehaving agent because this minimizes the number of agents having the largest steady-state deviation from the desired command (Yildirim – page 460). Therefore, selecting a driver agent without any other driver agents between that driver agent and the misbehaving agent and without any other driver agents between the misbehaving agent and the first agent would help to minimize the steady-state deviation.
Regarding claim 3, Vasseur discloses wherein the determining of the directed sub-network of the subset of the plurality of nodes comprises: determining the first directed communication path between the first node to the possible misbehaving node (see Fig. 5A, [0022, 0056-0057, 0072-0074] – root node or head-end node… set of ‘M’ neighbors… the number of ‘M’ neighbors (e.g., a subset of M) that are reporting node 35 as misbehaving… less weight is given to those neighbors that must communicate through node 35… NMS may receive communicated information 520 from a detecting node regarding a misbehaving node in the network); and including a plurality of first communication path nodes on the first directed communication path in the directed sub-network (see Fig. 5A, [0022, 0056-0057, 0072-0074] – root node or head-end node… set of ‘M’ neighbors… the number of ‘M’ neighbors (e.g., a subset of M) that are reporting node 35 as misbehaving… less weight is given to those neighbors that must communicate through node 35… NMS may receive communicated information 520 from a detecting node regarding a misbehaving node in the network).
Vasseur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the nodes are vehicles.
Yildirim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the nodes are vehicles (page 456 - vehicles).
The motivation to combine Vasseur and Yildirim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Vasseur discloses wherein the plurality of first communication path nodes on the first directed communication path comprises at least one of: a second possible misbehaving node of the plurality of possible misbehaving node or a floating node of the plurality of nodes (see Fig. 5A, [0022, 0056-0057, 0072-0074] – root node or head-end node… set of ‘M’ neighbors… the number of ‘M’ neighbors (e.g., a subset of M) that are reporting node 35 as misbehaving… less weight is given to those neighbors that must communicate through node 35… NMS may receive communicated information 520 from a detecting node regarding a misbehaving node in the network).
Vasseur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the nodes are vehicles.
Yildirim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the nodes are vehicles (page 456 - vehicles).
The motivation to combine Vasseur and Yildirim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Vasseur discloses wherein the determining of the directed sub-network of subset of the plurality of nodes further comprises: determining the second directed communication path between the first node to the driver node of the plurality of nodes (see Fig. 5A, [0022, 0056-0057, 0072-0074] – root node or head-end node… set of ‘M’ neighbors… the number of ‘M’ neighbors (e.g., a subset of M) that are reporting node 35 as misbehaving… less weight is given to those neighbors that must communicate through node 35… NMS may receive communicated information 520 from a detecting node regarding a misbehaving node in the network); and including a plurality of second communication path nodes on the second directed communication path in the directed sub-network (see Fig. 5A, [0022, 0056-0057, 0072-0074] – root node or head-end node… set of ‘M’ neighbors… the number of ‘M’ neighbors (e.g., a subset of M) that are reporting node 35 as misbehaving… less weight is given to those neighbors that must communicate through node 35… NMS may receive communicated information 520 from a detecting node regarding a misbehaving node in the network).
Vasseur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the nodes are vehicles.
Yildirim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the nodes are vehicles (page 456 - vehicles).
The motivation to combine Vasseur and Yildirim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Vasseur discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of second communication path nodes on the second directed communication path comprises at least one of: a second possible misbehaving node of the plurality of nodes or a floating node of the plurality of nodes (see Fig. 5A, [0022, 0056-0057, 0072-0074] – root node or head-end node… set of ‘M’ neighbors… the number of ‘M’ neighbors (e.g., a subset of M) that are reporting node 35 as misbehaving… less weight is given to those neighbors that must communicate through node 35… NMS may receive communicated information 520 from a detecting node regarding a misbehaving node in the network).
Vasseur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the nodes are vehicles.
Yildirim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the nodes are vehicles (page 456 - vehicles).
The motivation to combine Vasseur and Yildirim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Vasseur discloses wherein the first node comprises a critical node ([0034] – nodes are ranked higher or lower).
Vasseur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the nodes are vehicles.
Yildirim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the nodes are vehicles (page 456 - vehicles).
The motivation to combine Vasseur and Yildirim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Vasseur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the proportional-integral controller is configured to produce a control signal based on a global command and an integrator state.
Yildirim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the proportional-integral controller is configured to produce a control signal based on a global command and an integrator state (page 458 – control input to achieve steady-stage value of the multi-agent system… the integrator state and the desired command).
The motivation to combine Vasseur and Yildirim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Vasseur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the proportional-integral controller is implemented to the possible misbehaving vehicle.
Yildirim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the proportional-integral controller is implemented to the possible misbehaving vehicle (page 456 – control input is applied to the misbehaving agent).
The motivation to combine Vasseur and Yildirim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Vasseur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the proportional-integral controller is implemented to a neighbor vehicle to the possible misbehaving vehicle.
Yildirim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the proportional-integral controller is implemented to a neighbor vehicle to the possible misbehaving vehicle (page 458 – control input applied to any agent in the system except the misbehaving agent).
The motivation to combine Vasseur and Yildirim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Vasseur does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: determining a steady-state indication of each vehicle of the subset of the plurality of vehicles.
Yildirim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining a steady-state indication of each vehicle of the subset of the plurality of vehicles (page 456 – calculate the stead-state values of all agents).
The motivation to combine Vasseur and Yildirim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 12 and 14-20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1 and 3-10, and it has been determined that claims 12 and 14-20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1 and 3-10; therefore, claims 12 and 14-20 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1 and 3-10.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasseur in view of Yildirim and Kalogridis (GB 2 428 315 A, a copy of which was attached with the Office action dated 7/23/2025 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 2, Vasseur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of possible misbehaving vehicles is identified based on a predetermined susceptible region.
Yildirim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the nodes are vehicles (page 456 - vehicles).
The motivation to combine Vasseur and Yildirim is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Kalogridis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the plurality of possible misbehaving nodes is identified based on a predetermined susceptible region (abstract - The attack path prediction system receives static and dynamic data associated with a source node attacked in computer network along with static and dynamic risk attributes of one or more vulnerabilities associated with one or more target nodes reachable from source node.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kalogridis into the invention of Vasseur with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of predicting the attack path in a network (Kalogridis – [0002]). Predicting the attack path allows for a quicker response time to remedy the disturbance. Therefore, identifying possible misbehaving nodes based on a predetermined susceptible region could have been incorporated into Vasseur’s to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 2; therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-8 filed 10/23/2025, with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Vasseur does not teach or suggest including or excluding certain node types from directed paths or using such exclusions to define sub-network membership. Yildirim likewise does not teach the claimed directed sub-network structure, and does not provide a framework for computing or characterizing steady-state behavior within a directed sub-network defined by node roles and path constraints.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly amended limitations are entirely unclear, as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections. The newly amended limitations recite “the directed sub-network comprising: at least one driver vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include another driver vehicle between the at least one driver vehicle and the first vehicle; at least one possible misbehaving vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include any driver vehicle between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle; any floating vehicles on the at least one directed path between the at least one driver vehicle and the first vehicle; and any floating vehicles on the at least one directed path between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle…”. As explained in the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above, in dependent claims 10-11 and in the specification at paragraph [0022] the driver vehicle may be different types of vehicles (the misbehaving vehicle, the first/critical vehicle, or the floating vehicle can be a driver vehicle). It is entirely unclear what the at least one directed path is in each scenario (when the misbehaving vehicle is a driver vehicle, when the first/critical vehicle is a driver vehicle, or when the floating vehicle is a driver vehicle). For example, if the first/critical vehicle is a driver vehicle, then how can a directed path be defined between the first/critical vehicle and itself? If a misbehaving vehicle is a driver vehicle, then how are the directed paths defined? If a misbehaving vehicle is a driver vehicle, is each misbehaving vehicle a driver vehicle, or only one of the misbehaving vehicles? How are the directed paths defined if the first/critical vehicle is a driver vehicle, if the misbehaving vehicle is a driver vehicle, or if the floater vehicle is a driver vehicle? These newly amended limitations make it unclear what is being conveyed in the claim. Additionally, the floating vehicles of the directed sub-network do not appear to be required (optional). The newly amended limitations have been interpreted broadly as best understood when read in light of the specification. For example, if the first/critical vehicle is a driver vehicle then the directed sub-network comprises: at least one possible misbehaving vehicle having at least one directed path to the first vehicle (that is a driver vehicle) that does not include any driver vehicle between the at least one possible misbehaving vehicle and the first vehicle (driver vehicle). If the misbehaving vehicle is a driver vehicle then the directed sub-network comprises: at least one driver vehicle (a misbehaving vehicle) having at least one directed path to the first vehicle that does not include another driver vehicle (possibly the misbehaving vehicle) between the at least one driver vehicle (possibly the misbehaving vehicle) and the first vehicle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights