DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 13-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grunfeld, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0250967 (hereinafter Grunfeld).
Regarding claim 1, Grunfeld discloses a method of vehicle-to-vehicle messaging, the method comprising using a server computer (disclosed is a method for facilitating communication between vehicles using a platform, according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], whereby said platform comprises a server, according to [0016]), for:
receiving sensor data from a plurality of vehicle computers of respective vehicles being driven, and collecting the received sensor data (computing devices, located onboard respective vehicles, broadcast live feeds of their respective locations and vectors, determined via a GPS [“sensor data”], to the server via a wireless network, according to [0016], [0025]);
detecting a spatiotemporal match between at least two of the plurality of vehicle computers, using the collected sensor data (the platform receives a request from a remote computing device of a requestor, and identifies at least one recipient based on matching criteria, comprising the respective locations of the requestor and the at least one recipient, according to [0005]-[0006], [0015], [0022]-[0024], whereby this is a spatiotemporal match because the GPS data is a live feed of a given computing device’s location (e.g., a match is based on computing devices being close to each other at the present time), according to [0016], [0025])); and
establishing a messaging channel between at least two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match (two users matched by the platform connect over the network to coordinate an exchange, according to [0024]).
Claim 14 recites the system, comprising a processing circuitry; and a memory in communication with the processing circuitry, the memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry (the platform comprises a processor and a memory, said memory storing program instructions that are executed by said processor, according to Abstract, [0005]), that performs the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing a processing circuitry of a server computer (the platform comprises a processor and a memory [“non-transitory computer readable medium”], said memory storing program instructions that are executed by said processor, according to Abstract, [0005]) to perform the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Grunfeld discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving from each respective one of at least two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, a request message indicating a request to establish the messaging channel and conditioning the establishment of the messaging channel upon said receiving (the platform receives a request from the requestor, and sends, to the recipient, an offer to communicate with the requestor, with a prompt to either deny or accept the request (the recipient transmitting an accept response back to the platform constitutes sending a request to communicate with the requestor), according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], [0015]).
Regarding claim 4, Grunfeld discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, a request message indicating a request to establish the messaging channel and conditioning the establishment of the messaging channel upon said receiving (the recipient responds to a prompt to either deny or accept the request to communicate with the requestor (the recipient transmitting an accept response back to the platform constitutes sending a request to communicate with the requestor), according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], [0015]).
Regarding claim 5, Grunfeld discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, data characterizing a driver of a vehicle that is installed with the vehicle computer, and conditioning said establishing of the messaging channel upon the received data characterizing the driver (the platform receives data characterizing a driver’s desire for a specific action in relation to another driver, according to [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Grunfeld discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the received sensor data comprises at least one of location data, Global Position System (GPS) data and image data (the platform receives GPS data, according to [0016], [0025]).
Regarding claim 10, Grunfeld discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving data from a driver of a vehicle that the vehicle computer is installed in, and conditioning the establishing of the messaging channel upon the data received from the driver (a recipient may send an accept response [“data”] to a prompt to establish communication with a requestor, according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], [0015]).
Regarding claim 13, Grunfeld discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising establishing the messaging channel between only two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the spatiotemporal match (the network connection for coordinating an exchange is between two vehicle computers that were matched based on location, according to [0024]).
Regarding claim 16, Grunfeld discloses the system of claim 14, wherein when executed by the processing circuitry, the instructions further cause the system to perform at least one of:
receive from each respective one of at least two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, a request message indicating a request to establish the messaging channel (the platform receives a request from the requestor, and sends, to the recipient, an offer to communicate with the requestor, with a prompt to either deny or accept the request (the recipient transmitting an accept response back to the platform constitutes sending a request to communicate with the requestor), according to Abstract, [0005]-[0006], [0015]), and
receive from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, data characterizing a driver of the vehicle that is installed with the vehicle computer, and condition said establishing of the messaging channel upon the received data characterizing the driver (the platform receives data characterizing a driver’s desire for a specific action in relation to another driver, according to [0024]).
Claim 17 does not differ substantively from claim 7, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunfeld as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, in view of Salter et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0194253 (hereinafter Salter).
Regarding claim 2, Grunfeld discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Grunfeld does not expressly disclose that upon failing to establish the messaging channel, conducting one of: establishing a first messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a first one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a second messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a driver of a vehicle installed with a first one of the vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a third messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and establishing a fourth messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for drivers of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match.
Salter discloses that upon failing to establish the messaging channel, conducting one of: establishing a first messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a first one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a second messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a driver of a vehicle installed with a first one of the vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a third messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and establishing a fourth messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for drivers of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match (an electric vehicle in need of recharging, yet out of range of the nearest charging station, seeks a candidate donor vehicle that is capable of V2V charging, whereby a charging request is sent to a candidate donor vehicle, which may reject the proposal [“failing to establish the messaging channel”], whereupon a charging request is sent to another candidate donor, which may accept the proposal, whereupon the requester and the donor communicate to an agreed location for charging [“establishing a first messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a first one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match”], according to [0029], Fig. 4 [steps 402, 404, 406, 408, 414, and 422]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld with Salter such that upon failing to establish the messaging channel, conducting one of: establishing a first messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a first one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a second messaging channel between a secondary computing device predefined for a driver of a vehicle installed with a first one of the vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and a second one of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, establishing a third messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match, and establishing a fourth messaging channel between respective secondary computing devices predefined for drivers of the plurality of vehicle computers having the detected spatiotemporal match.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to assist an electric vehicle driver whose battery’s charge level is insufficient to reach the nearest charging station (Salter: [0029]).
Claim 15 does not differ substantively from claim 2, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
9. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunfeld as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Simoniy et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0292186 (hereinafter Simoniy).
Regarding claim 6, Grunfeld discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Grunfeld does not expressly disclose that said detected spatiotemporal match pertains to a point in time that is of a predefined period of time before said establishing.
Simoniy discloses that said detected spatiotemporal match pertains to a point in time that is of a predefined period of time before said establishing (based on a detected proximity between two communication devices, a connection is established between those two communication devices after a predefined period of time, according to [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld with Simoniy such that said detected spatiotemporal match pertains to a point in time that is of a predefined period of time before said establishing.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to mitigate low initial received signal strength (Simoniy: [0097]).
10. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunfeld as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, in view of Whyte et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0230537 (hereinafter Whyte).
Regarding claim 8, Grunfeld discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Grunfeld does not expressly disclose receiving dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers and using the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match.
Whyte discloses receiving dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers and using the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match (the positions of V2X system participants are updated using dead reckoning information in order to create a model of the local environment around a V2X system participant in order to detect potential collisions and avoid them, according to [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld with Whyte by receiving dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers and using the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently and safely position vehicles with respect to each other (Whyte: [0036]).
Regarding claim 19, Grunfeld discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Grunfeld does not expressly disclose causing the system to perform at least one of: receive a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, select a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limit communication over the messaging channel to the selected set, establish the messaging channel between only two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the spatiotemporal match, and receive dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, and use the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match.
Whyte discloses causing the system to perform at least one of: receive a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, select a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limit communication over the messaging channel to the selected set, establish the messaging channel between only two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the spatiotemporal match, and receive dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, and use the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match (the positions of V2X system participants are updated using dead reckoning information in order to create a model of the local environment around a V2X system participant in order to detect potential collisions and avoid them [“receive dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, and use the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match”], according to [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld with Whyte by causing the system to perform at least one of: receive a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, select a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limit communication over the messaging channel to the selected set, establish the messaging channel between only two of the plurality of vehicle computers having the spatiotemporal match, and receive dead reckoning data from at least one of the plurality of vehicle computers, and use the received dead reckoning data for detecting the spatiotemporal match.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently and safely position vehicles with respect to each other (Whyte: [0036]).
11. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunfeld as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, in view of Yang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0421985 (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 9, Grunfeld discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Grunfeld does not expressly disclose at least one of: deriving location data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, deriving vehicle type data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, and deriving vehicle identification data from image data comprised in the received sensor data.
Yang discloses at least one of: deriving location data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, deriving vehicle type data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, and deriving vehicle identification data from image data comprised in the received sensor data (a client device captures a reference image, transmits said reference image to a server, and said server determines the location of said client device using said reference image [“deriving location data from image data comprised in the received sensor data”], according to [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld with Yang by at least one of: deriving location data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, deriving vehicle type data from image data comprised in the received sensor data, and deriving vehicle identification data from image data comprised in the received sensor data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate location determination in situations in which GPS-based positioning is not possible.
Claim 18 does not differ substantively from claim 9, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
12. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunfeld as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Carte et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0352451 (hereinafter Carte).
Regarding claim 11, Grunfeld discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Grunfeld does not expressly disclose limiting communication over the messaging channel to a set of predefined fixed messages.
Carte discloses limiting communication over the messaging channel to a set of predefined fixed messages (text messages sent from a vehicle to other vehicles are selected from a predefined set of text messages, according to [0044]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld with Carte by limiting communication over the messaging channel to a set of predefined fixed messages.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent accidents that are caused by driver inattentiveness (Carte: [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Grunfeld discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Grunfeld does not expressly disclose receiving a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, selecting a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limiting communication over the messaging channel to the selected set.
Carte discloses receiving a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, selecting a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limiting communication over the messaging channel to the selected set (the driver of a vehicle selects on of a plurality of message categories, and then is provided with a set of messages in that selected category that can be sent to another vehicle, according to [0044]-[0045], Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunfeld with Carte by receiving a request message from one of the plurality of vehicle computers, selecting a set of predefined fixed messages based on a type of the request message received from the vehicle computer, and limiting communication over the messaging channel to the selected set.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent accidents that are caused by driver inattentiveness (Carte: [0003]-[0005]).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645