DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 3/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are rejected.
Priority
This application was filed 9/21/2023.
Claim Objections
Previous objections of Claims 7 & 10 are withdrawn in view of present amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the communications above have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are considered not persuasive.
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 of this title, 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.
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 1-3, 6-10, 13-14, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfadler et al. (US 2023/0345265 A1) in view of Sheriff et al. (US 2021/0127309 A1) in view of Noda (JP 2017091029 A).
With regard to Claim 1, Pfadler teaches:
A system for a vehicle comprising:
a WiFi station; (a mobile communication system 300 comprising a transportation vehicle with a first transceiver 100 [Pfadler: 0043; Fig. 2], wherein the mobile communication system 300 may comprise a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) IEEE 802.11 network [Pfadler: 0047-48]);
data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
detecting an access point; establishing a link between the access point and the WiFi station; (establishing a radio link between the first transceiver 100 (e.g. transportation vehicle) and a second transceiver 200 (e.g. a base station/access point) [Pfadler: 0043; 0035; Fig. 2]);
obtaining recent speed data of the vehicle; obtaining recent mobility pattern data of the vehicle based on geolocation data and map data; and determining optimal physical (PHY) parameters corresponding to highest data rate based on the recent speed data, and the recent mobility pattern data; (utilizing radar, lidar, onboard camera, GPS, high-accuracy positioning system and high definition maps, and other sensor data to determine velocity, position, relative speeds and distances of a vehicle, wherein a physical layer configuration is selected based on the determined sensor data to achieve higher spectral efficiency [Pfadler: 0083-84; 0064; Fig. 4; Claims 1-4]).
However, Pfadler does not teach:
obtaining recent yaw rate data of the vehicle;
obtaining recent acceleration data of the vehicle;
In a similar field of endeavor involving determining optimum network parameters based on vehicle state information, Sheriff discloses:
obtaining recent speed data of the vehicle; obtaining recent acceleration data of the vehicle; and determining optimal physical (PHY) parameters corresponding to highest data rate based on the recent speed data, and the recent acceleration data; (receive telemetry data from a plurality of autonomous vehicles indicative of radio signal quality metrics experienced by the vehicles at a particular location over time, wherein the telemetry data may comprise a packet error rate (PER), a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), or a signal to noise ratio (SNR) taken by one of the vehicles at a particular location and may further include state information regarding the vehicle itself, such as its location, velocity, acceleration, or the like, and utilizing the telemetry data to compute optimum network parameters [Sheriff: 0084-87; 0052-61; Fig. 8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfadler in view of Sheriff in order to determine optimal physical parameters based on vehicle acceleration data in the system of Pfadler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pfadler with Sheriff as doing so would provide additional environmental information useful for predicting vehicle travel position and network interference.
While Pfadler-Sheriff acknowledges turns can lead to ‘dead spots’ at which a client will lose its connection to the network [0004], Pfadler-Sheriff does not teach: obtaining recent yaw rate data of the vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor involving predicting relative position and velocity of a target object in a moving vehicle, Noda discloses:
obtaining recent yaw rate data of the vehicle; and determining vehicle position based on the recent yaw rate data; (utilizing an acceleration sensor 6 to detect the acceleration A of the host vehicle, and a yaw rate sensor 7 to detect the turning angular velocity ω of the host vehicle, wherein the predicted relative position of the target object is calculated using the vehicle speed and the yaw rate [Noda: p. 2 middle; p. 1 bottom]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfadler-Sheriff in view of Noda in order to obtain recent yaw rate data and determine a vehicle position based on the recent yaw rate data in the system of Pfadler-Sheriff.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pfadler-Sheriff with Noda as utilizing yaw rate allows for more accurate position prediction even when the vehicle is accelerating and/or has a varying turning rate [Noda: p. 4 middle].
With regard to Claim 2, Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise obtaining packet error rate data; (bit-to error ratio (BER) is evaluated against a threshold [Pfadler: 0081; Fig. 3]).
With regard to Claim 3, Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda teaches:
The system of claim 2, wherein determining the optimal PHY parameters is based at least partially on the packet error rate data; (if BER is above the threshold indicating too many errors, a more robust MCS is selected, wherein if BER is below the threshold indicating more errors affordable, a higher spectral efficiency MCS is selected [Pfadler: 0081; Fig. 3]).
With regard to Claim 6, Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the recent mobility pattern data includes data obtained from at least a second vehicle separate from the vehicle; (receive telemetry data from a plurality of autonomous vehicles indicative of radio signal quality metrics experienced by each of the vehicles at a particular location over time, wherein the telemetry data may comprise a packet error rate (PER), a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), or a signal to noise ratio (SNR) taken by one of the vehicles at a particular location and may further include state information regarding the vehicle itself, such as its location, velocity, acceleration, or the like, and utilizing the telemetry data to compute optimum network parameters [Sheriff: 0084-87; 0052-61; Fig. 8]).
With regard to Claim 7, Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda teaches:
The system of claim 6, wherein the recent mobility pattern data includes data obtained from at least a third vehicle separate from the vehicle; (receive telemetry data from a plurality of autonomous vehicles indicative of radio signal quality metrics experienced by each of the vehicles at a particular location over time, wherein the telemetry data may comprise a packet error rate (PER), a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), or a signal to noise ratio (SNR) taken by one of the vehicles at a particular location and may further include state information regarding the vehicle itself, such as its location, velocity, acceleration, or the like, and utilizing the telemetry data to compute optimum network parameters [Sheriff: 0084-87; 0052-61; Fig. 8]).
With regard to Claims 8-10, 13-14, & 16, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1-3 & 6-7 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 8-10, 13-14, & 16 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-3 & 6-7.
Claims 4-5 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfadler et al. (US 2023/0345265 A1) in view of Sheriff et al. (US 2021/0127309 A1) in view of Noda (JP 2017091029 A) as applied to Claims 1, 3, 8, & 11 above, and further in view of Ren et al. (US 2013/0028307 A1).
With regard to Claim 4, Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda teaches:
The system of claim 3, wherein determining the optimal PHY parameters includes changing to different PHY parameters if the packet error rate data is below a pre-determined threshold; (if BER is below the threshold indicating more errors affordable, a higher spectral efficiency MCS is selected [Pfadler: 0081; Fig. 3]).
However, Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
wherein determining the optimal PHY parameters includes changing to different PHY parameters if the packet error rate data is below a pre-determined threshold for a pre-determined amount of time.
In a similar field of endeavor involving adaptively adjusting a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) based on error rate, Ren discloses:
wherein determining the optimal PHY parameters includes changing to different PHY parameters if the packet error rate data is below a pre-determined threshold for a pre-determined amount of time; (measuring the Transport Block (TB) error statistic for a defined observation period, wherein at the end of the observation period an error rate (e.g. BLER) is calculated and the MCS offset is adjusted based on the degree of deviation of the calculated error rate from the target error rate threshold [Ren: 0057-58]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda in view of Ren in order to change PHY parameters if the packet error rate data is below a pre-determined threshold for a pre-determined amount of time in the system of Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda with Ren as doing so would allow the period for observing network errors to be defined and adjusted to account for various network conditions.
With regard to Claim 5, Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the operations further comprise optimizing quality of service criteria for active applications of the system based on the determined optimal PHY parameters.
In a similar field of endeavor involving adaptively adjusting a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) based on error rate, Ren discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise optimizing quality of service criteria for active applications of the system based on the determined optimal PHY parameters; (adjusting the MCS level for transmissions on a communication channel on a per traffic type basis such that an MCS offset is calculated for each traffic group based on the target error rate that is specific to that traffic, wherein traffic groups may be defined based on delay-tolerant and delay-sensitive applications [Ren: 0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda in view of Ren in order to optimize quality of service criteria for active applications of the system based on the determined optimal PHY parameters in the system of Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pfadler-Sheriff-Noda with Ren as doing so would utilize radio link adaptation techniques to ensure that the required Quality-of-Service (QoS) for a specific application is met under varying radio channel conditions [Ren: 0005].
With regard to Claims 11-12, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 4-5 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 11-12 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 4-5.
Claims 15 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfadler et al. (US 2023/0345265 A1) in view of Noda (JP 2017091029 A).
With regard to Claim 15, Pfadler teaches:
A computer-implemented method that when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
detecting an access point; establishing a link between the access point and a WiFi station; (establishing a radio link between the first transceiver 100 (e.g. transportation vehicle) and a second transceiver 200 (e.g. a base station/access point) [Pfadler: 0043; 0035; Fig. 2]);
obtaining optimization data based on recent mobility data of a vehicle; determining optimal physical (PHY) parameters corresponding to highest data rate based on the recent mobility data of the vehicle; (utilizing radar, lidar, onboard camera, GPS and other sensor data to determine velocity, position, relative speeds and distances, wherein a physical layer configuration is selected based on the determined sensor data to achieve higher spectral efficiency [Pfadler: 0083-84; 0064; Fig. 4; Claims 1-4]).
However Pfadler does not teach the optimization data is obtained based on recent yaw rate data of the vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor involving predicting relative position and velocity of a target object in a moving vehicle, Noda discloses:
obtaining vehicle position data based on recent mobility data of a vehicle, including recent yaw rate data of the vehicle; (utilizing an acceleration sensor 6 to detect the acceleration A of the host vehicle, and a yaw rate sensor 7 to detect the turning angular velocity ω of the host vehicle, wherein the predicted relative position of the target object is calculated using the vehicle speed and the yaw rate [Noda: p. 2 middle; p. 1 bottom]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfadler-Sheriff in view of Noda in order to obtain recent yaw rate data and determine a vehicle position based on the recent yaw rate data in the system of Pfadler-Sheriff.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Pfadler-Sheriff with Noda as utilizing yaw rate allows for more accurate position prediction even when the vehicle is accelerating and/or has a varying turning rate [Noda: p. 4 middle].
With regard to Claim 17, Pfadler-Noda teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise obtaining packet error rate data; (bit-to error ratio (BER) is evaluated against a threshold [Pfadler: 0081; Fig. 3]).
With regard to Claim 18, Pfadler-Noda teaches:
The method of claim 17 wherein determining the optimal PHY parameters is based at least partially on the packet error rate data; (if BER is above the threshold indicating too many errors, a more robust MCS is selected, wherein if BER is below the threshold indicating more errors affordable, a higher spectral efficiency MCS is selected [Pfadler: 0081; Fig. 3]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfadler et al. (US 2023/0345265 A1) in view of Noda (JP 2017091029 A) as applied to Claims 15 & 18 above, and further in view of Ren et al. (US 2013/0028307 A1).
With regard to Claims 19-20, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 4-5 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 4-5.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reimann et al. (US 2021/0120440 A1) which teaches estimating a future position and environment of a mobile device based on the current position and an environment model, wherein the channel quality for a future point in time is estimated therefrom, and wherein at least one parameter of the communication system is set based on the estimation [Abstract].
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights