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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment Submitted/Applicant Arguments correspondence 08/06/2025.
Claims 1-10 are pending and rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments, filed 08/06/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amended claims.
Applicant argues that Kalhan fails to teach or suggest identifying a safety-critical vehicle or estimating transmission time slots of identified interferers as recited in amended claim 1. Applicant further contends that Balasubramanian merely discloses broadcasts of BSMs without teaching the claimed identification of a safety-critical vehicle in accordance with a driving scenario or identifying interferes in proximity to the safety-critical vehicle. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons below. Furthermore, the claim amendments mapping to the references have been updated below.
First, with respect to Kalhan, Applicant narrowly characterizes Kalhan’s disclosure as limited to generic “energy sensing.” However, Kalhan expressly teaches that wireless communication devices perform energy sensing, observe periodic transmissions of neighboring devise, and thereafter predict future transmission time slots of those devices [0014]. Kalhan further describes that such prediction is based on past periodic transmission time slots of the neighboring device (id.), which corresponds to the claimed step of “estimating transmission time slots of a first channel of each identified interfere based on past transmissions of the respective identified interferer.” While Applicant argues that Kalhan does not expressly label neighboring devices as “interferers”, the label is not controlling. The neighboring devices whose periodic transmissions are sensed and avoided by the ego-device functionally operate as interferers in the claimed context, since they occupy time slots that would otherwise collide with ego-device transmissions. Thus Kalhan teaches or at minimum suggests that claimed estimation of interferer transmission time slots.
Second, with respect to Balasubramanian, Applicant argues that BSM broadcasts merely provide parameters of the transmitting vehicle without teaching “identifying a safety-critical vehicle in accordance with a driving scenario.” However, Balasubramanian explicitly discloses that the BSM includes information such as location, speed, heading, acceleration, braking status, and vehicle size ([0065]-[0066]). Balasubramanian further explains that receiving UEs use this information to adjust their parameters to avoid collisions [0065], which is the very definition of identifying a “safety-critical vehicle” in a relevant driving scenario (e.g. vehicle braking suddenly or entering an intersection). A skilled artisan would recognize that processing the BSMs demonstrates that the ego-vehicle uses the broadcast information to identify specific vehicles in proximity and assess their safety relevance.
Accordingly, Kalhan and Balasubramanian, in combination of one another, disclose or render obvious the claimed features. Kalhan teaches estimating transmission opportunities of interferers to avoid collisions, while Balasubramanian teaches identifying safety-critical vehicles based on BSMs including position, speed, and motion parameters. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Kalhan’s slot-avoidance scheme with Balasubramanian’s safety-message framework to ensure reliable communication with safety-critical vehicles by avoiding collisions with transmissions from other nearby vehicles.
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 (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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al ( US 2023/0164519 A1) in view of Kalhan et al (US 2021/0400723 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Balasubramanian discloses In a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) environment, a method comprising: by an ego- vehicle: identifying a safety-critical vehicle in a vicinity of the ego-vehicle in accordance with a driving scenario; (see [0065] “UEs 115 may be configured to transmit safety messages (e.g., position message, BSM) that indicate one or more parameters associated with the transmitting UE 115 (e.g., location, speed, heading, etc.)”)
identifying a plurality of interferers in proximity to the safety-critical vehicle in accordance with a threshold signal strength (see [0065]-[0066], [0073]-[0074], reduce periodicity when surrounded by greater number of cars (interferers); the act of reducing is threshold signal strength based on a number of factors; probability of induced collision (RF collision based on physical proximity which is signal strength) BSMs containing parameters like location, speed, heading acceleration, which neighbors receive BSMs and reception depends on radio perception as neighbors, adjust parameters to avoid collision with transmitting UE – which requires identifying vehicles)
But Balasubramanian fails to disclose estimating transmission time slots on a first channel of each identified interferer based on past transmissions of the respective identified interferer; and transmitting, to the safety-critical vehicle, a message in a time slot that is different than the estimated transmission time slots of each identified interferer via the first channel in accordance with having identified the safety-critical vehicle.
However, Kalhan discloses estimating transmission time slots on a first channel of each identified interferer based on past transmissions of the respective identified interferer (see [0014] periodicity of the transmissions refers to past observed transmissions of a neighboring device- device observes neighbor’s earlier use of specific slot, from this past transmission history, the device determines the neighbor’s transmission periodicity and using past information predicts future occupied slots; “Based on the periodicity of the transmissions, the neighboring wireless communication devices are able to predict that the transmitting wireless communication device's subsequent data transmissions would occur”);
and transmitting, to the safety-critical vehicle, a message in a time slot that is different than the estimated transmission time slots of each identified interferer via the first channel in accordance with having identified the safety-critical vehicle.(Abstract, [0013]-[0015], [0036]-[0038], describes creating/receiving reserved time-slot lists and refraining from transmitting during time-slots identifies in those lists; devices select unused slots that avoid the predicted (reserved/periodic) slots of others—choosing a time-slot different from the estimated interferer slots).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kalhan with the vehicle location methods of Balasubramanian. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve safety with knowledge of surrounding vehicles.
Regarding Claim 2, Kalhan discloses the method, wherein transmitting the message in the time slot comprises scheduling a transmission time slot which does not overlap with the estimated interferer transmission time slots and transmitting in the time slot (see [0013] “Once an unused time-slot is found and selected, the wireless communication device uses the selected time-slot for data transmissions”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Kalhan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haran (US 2019/0320341 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kalhan discloses the method, wherein the first channel is a C-V2X channel, and wherein the estimating the transmission slots of each identified interferer comprises: identifying first time slots during which each identified interferer is expected to transmit on the first channel;(see, [0014] “Based on the periodicity of the transmissions, the neighboring wireless communication devices are able to predict that the transmitting wireless communication device's subsequent data transmissions would occur”).
identifying possible transmission resources per a resource selection procedure (see [0013] “Once an unused time-slot is found and selected, the wireless communication device uses the selected time-slot for data transmissions”),
and (iv) selecting an identified transmission resource while excluding slots identified in (i) and (ii) (see [0034] “In order to avoid possible data collisions, wireless communication device 106 refrains from transmitting data during the reserved time-slots that were identified”).
Kalhan and Balasubramanian fail to disclose, but Haran discloses identifying second time slots during which each respective identified interferer is expected to transmit on a channel adjacent to the first channel based on past transmission times of the respective identified interferer (see Abstract “A method comprises, in a V2X communication unit, detecting energy of an adjacent channel, or current and future scheduled transmission in the adjacent channel, if available, the adjacent channel being adjacent to a main channel, and if adjacent channel transmission is detected, deferring transmission in the main channel to maintain a sufficient communication range for both the main channel and the adjacent channel”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kalhan and Balasubramanian with the adjacent channel monitoring of Haran.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce opportunities for messages to be lost due to interference.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Kalhan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ETSI (EN 302 663 V1.3.1 published 12/7/2020).
Regarding Claim 4, Kalhan discloses the method, wherein the first channel is an ITS-G5 channel, and wherein the estimating the transmission slots of each identified interferer comprises: identifying time slots during which each identified interferer is expected to transmit on the first channel as the ego-vehicle (see [0014] “Based on the periodicity of the transmissions, the neighboring wireless communication devices are able to predict that the transmitting wireless communication device's subsequent data transmissions would occur”),
treating all identified time-slots as channel busy (see [0033] “Since time-slot t.sub.m is listed as one of the reserved time-slots being used by neighboring wireless communication devices, wireless communication device 106 refrains from transmitting data in time-slot t.sub.m”).
Kalhan and Balasubramanian fail to disclose, but ETSI discloses attempting a transmission using an ITS-G5 MAC channel access procedure (see Fig. C.2(b)),
and checking whether the transmission was successful in a configurable pre-defined interval (see Fig. C.2(b), Decision box “Successful reception of ACK?”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kalhan and Subramanian with the ITS-G5 access procedure of ETSI.
The motivation for doing so would have been to validate successful access to the ITS-G5 channels.
Regarding Claim 5, Kalhan and Balasubramanian fail to disclose, but ETSI discloses The method of claim 4, wherein, if the transmission was not successful in the configurable pre-defined interval, the transmitting the message in the time slot comprises transmitting according to an JTS-G5 standard defined transmission procedure (see Fig. C.2(b)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kalhan and Subramanian with the ITS-G5 access procedure of ETSI.
The motivation for doing so would have been to properly achieve access to ITS-G5 channels.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Kalhan and in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0150135 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kalhan discloses and wherein the modified MAC layer is configured to estimate transmission time slots on a first channel of each identified interferer based on past transmissions of the respective identified interferer (see [0014] “Based on the periodicity of the transmissions, the neighboring wireless communication devices are able to predict that the transmitting wireless communication device's subsequent data transmissions would occur”);
and to transmit, to the safety-critical vehicle, a message in a time slot that is different than the estimated transmission time slots of each identified interferer via the first channel in accordance with having identified the safety-critical vehicle .(Abstract, [0013]-[0015], [0036]-[0038], describes creating/receiving reserved time-slot lists and refraining from transmitting during time-slots identifies in those lists; devices select unused slots that avoid the predicted (reserved/periodic) slots of others—choosing a time-slot different from the estimated interferer slots).
Kalhan fails to disclose but Balasubramanian discloses A vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication unit installed in an ego-vehicle and comprising: a radio transceiver for transmitting and receiving messages (see [0065] “UEs 115 may be configured to transmit safety messages (e.g., position message, BSM) that indicate one or more parameters associated with the transmitting UE 115 (e.g., location, speed, heading, etc.)”);
wherein the V2X stack is configured to identify a safety-critical vehicle in a vicinity of the ego-vehicle in accordance with a driving scenario (see [0065] “UEs 115 may be configured to transmit safety messages (e.g., position message, BSM) that indicate one or more parameters associated with the transmitting UE 115 (e.g., location, speed, heading, etc.).”)
and identify a plurality of interferers in proximity to the safety-critical vehicle in accordance with a threshold signal strength (see [0065] “a vehicle UE 115 may be configured to broadcast a BSM in accordance with a periodicity (e.g., a default periodicity or frequency) so as to alert one or more neighboring UEs 115 (e.g., nearby UEs 115, on-coming UEs 115) of the presence of the vehicle UE 115, where the neighboring UEs 115 may be other vehicle UEs 115, pedestrian UEs 115, bicycle UEs 115, etc”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kalhan with the vehicle location methods of Balasubramanian.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve safety with knowledge of surrounding vehicles.
Kalhan and Balasubramanian fail to disclose but Lee discloses
and a V2X processor operatively coupled with the radio transceiver (see Fig.13, [0167] “The RF unit 1130 is connected to the processor 1110 to transmit and receive radio signals.”);
wherein the V2X processor comprises a PHY layer (see Fig. 2, Fig 3, [0041] “Data is transferred between the MAC layer and the PHY layer through the transport channel”),
a modified MAC layer (see Fig. 2, Fig 3, [0041] “Data is transferred between the MAC layer and the PHY layer through the transport channel”),
and a V2X stack (see Fig. 2, Fig 3, [0040] “The user plane is a protocol stack for user data transmission. The control plane is a protocol stack for control signal transmission.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kalhan and Balasubramanian with the device structure of Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to develop an apparatus capable of the desired functionality.
Regarding Claim 7, Kalhan discloses The V2X communication unit of claim 6, wherein a configuration of the modified MAC layer is configured to: estimate the transmission time slots of each identified interferer based on the past transmissions of the respective identified interferer (see [0014] “Based on the periodicity of the transmissions, the neighboring wireless communication devices are able to predict that the transmitting wireless communication device's subsequent data transmissions would occur”);
and schedule a transmission time slot which does not overlap with the estimated interferer transmission time slots and to transmit in the scheduled transmission time slots, wherein transmission of the message in the time slot is in accordance with the scheduling of the transmission time slot (see Abstract, [0013]-[0015], [0036]-[0038], describes creating/receiving reserved time-slot lists and refraining from transmitting during time-slots identifies in those lists; devices select unused slots that avoid the predicted (reserved/periodic) slots of others—choosing a time-slot different from the estimated interferer slots). “Once an unused time-slot is found and selected, the wireless communication device uses the selected time-slot for data transmissions”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Kalhan and in view of Lee as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Haran (US 2019/0320341 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kalhan discloses the V2X communication unit, wherein the first channel is a C-V2X channel (see [0012] “and cellular-based V2X (C-V2X)”),
and wherein a configuration of the modified MAC layer to estimate the transmission time slots of each identified interferer comprises a configuration to: identify first time slots during which each identified interferer is expected to transmit on the first channel (see [0014] “Based on the periodicity of the transmissions, the neighboring wireless communication devices are able to predict that the transmitting wireless communication device's subsequent data transmissions would occur”);
identify possible transmission resources per a sensing based resource selection procedure (see [0013] “Once an unused time-slot is found and selected, the wireless communication device uses the selected time-slot for data transmissions”);
and select an identified transmission resource while excluding the first slots and the second slots (see [0034] “In order to avoid possible data collisions, wireless communication device 106 refrains from transmitting data during the reserved time-slots that were identified”).
Kalhan, Balasubramanian and Lee do not disclose but Haran discloses identify second time slots during which each respective identified interferer is expected to transmit on a channel adjacent to the first channel, based on past transmission times of the respective identified interferer (see Abstract “A method comprises, in a V2X communication unit, detecting energy of an adjacent channel, or current and future scheduled transmission in the adjacent channel, if available, the adjacent channel being adjacent to a main channel, and if adjacent channel transmission is detected, deferring transmission in the main channel to maintain a sufficient communication range for both the main channel and the adjacent channel.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kalhan, Subramanian and Lee with the adjacent channel monitoring of Haran.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce opportunities for messages to be lost due to interference.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Kalhan and in view of Lee as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of ETSI.
Regarding Claim 9, Kalhan discloses the V2X communication unit, wherein the first channel is an JTS-G5 channel, and wherein a configuration of the modified MAC layer to estimate the transmission slots of each identified interferer comprises a configuration to: identify time slots during which each identified interferer is expected to transmit on the first channel (see [0014] “Based on the periodicity of the transmissions, the neighboring wireless communication devices are able to predict that the transmitting wireless communication device's subsequent data transmissions would occur”);
treating all identified time-slots as channel busy (see [0033] “Since time-slot t.sub.m is listed as one of the reserved time-slots being used by neighboring wireless communication devices, wireless communication device 106 refrains from transmitting data in time-slot t.sub.m”),
Kalhan, Balasubramanian and Lee do not disclose but ETSI discloses to attempt a transmission using an ITS-G5 MAC channel access procedure (see Fig. C.2(b)),
and to check whether the transmission was successful in a configurable pre-defined interval (see Fig. C.2(b), Decision box “Successful reception of ACK?”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kalhan, Subramanian and Lee with the ITS-G5 access procedure of ETSI.
The motivation for doing so would have been to validate successful access to the ITS-G5 channel.
Regarding Claim 10, Kalhan, Balasubramanian and Lee do not disclose but ETSI discloses The V2X communication unit of claim 9, wherein, if the transmission was not successful in the configurable pre-defined interval, the configuration of the modified MAC layer to transmit the message in the time slot comprises transmitting according to an ITS-G5 standard defined transmission procedure (see Fig. C.2(b)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kalhan, Subramanian and Lee with the ITS-G5 access procedure of ETSI.
The motivation for doing so would have been to properly achieve access to the ITS-G5 channels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rubin et al (US9449515B2) discloses V2V safety system using vehicle location as vehicle identification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE whose telephone number is (571)272-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0830-1700 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights