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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02 January 2026. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional App. No. 63/606,643 is acknowledged. Examiner notes that the current claims do not appear to be fully supported by the provisional application and further notes that the Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application dated 13 March 2024 and the provisional application dated 06 December 2023. No action on the part of the Applicant is requested at this time.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated 02 January 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous objections to the specification; maintains the previous claim interpretations; maintains the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections; withdraws the previous 35 USC 101 rejections; and maintains the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Some of the applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 16, filed 02 January 2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC 101 rejections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-7 and 15-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 16-17, that the amended claims overcome the previous 35 USC 101 rejections because of the following amended limitation: “wherein each of the plurality of marshaled vehicle is guided to a destination based on one or more waypoint commands contained in the plurality of smaller fragmented messages.”. Examiner agrees. The claimed amended limitation which includes vehicle control demonstrates a practical application. For this reason, examiner is persuaded and withdraws the previous 35 USC 101 rejections.
The remainder of the applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 12-15 and 17-20, filed 02 January 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 12-13, that “infrastructure system” conveys “sufficiently definite structural meaning”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the limitation in claim 8, “…an infrastructure system configured to: segment…fragment…and transmit…” the term “system” is a generic placeholder and “segment…fragment…and transmit…” are functional language used to modify the generic placeholder. The word “infrastructure,” used before the generic placeholder, is not a structural modifier nor does it have a “definite structural meaning”. Furthermore, applicant points to paragraphs 0019-0023 to show a description of the structure of the “infrastructure system”, but paragraph 0019 states that the “infrastructure system” is not shown in FIG. 1 and that a “marshaling system 100” is shown in FIG. 1. Therefore the description of the elements included in FIG. 1 are part of the “marshaling system 100” and not the “infrastructure system” (i.e., the automated vehicle marshaling (AVM) central server edge 104, one or more RSUs 106a-106c, and sensor infrastructures 108a-108e). It appears that the “infrastructure system” and the “marshaling system” are sometimes conflated throughout the claims, arguments, and specification, but are actually two different systems. Examiner is using paragraphs 0019 and 0031 as the basis for determining what is included in each system. For these reasons, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding clam interpretations.
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 14-15, that it is clear which “transmission criteria” are required in the invention and therefore the relevant limitations and claims are not indefinite. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation states: “…wherein the one or more transmission criteria include [A] a distance each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles are from each road-side unit of the one or more road-side units, [B] a number of marshaled vehicles of the plurality of marshaled vehicles, [C] a number of waypoints associated with each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles, or [D] a combination thereof.” Due to limitation D, it is unclear whether each of the limitations A-C are required in the claimed invention. For example, the combination of limitations A and B could be required, but not limitation C, or claim C could be required, but not limitations A and B, or claims A, B, and C could be required. For this reason, claims 3, 10, and 16 are rejected as being indefinite. For these reasons, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
In response to applicant's argument, see Remarks, pg. 15, that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea due to certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “fragmenting a data packet into a plurality of smaller fragmented messages based on one or more transmission”) are not recited in the amended claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues, see Remarks, pg. 17-18, that the prior art references fail to teach the amended claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. US-20200183416-A1 (“Cheng”) discloses transmitting a plurality of fragmented messages to each marshaled vehicle based on transmission criteria, see Cheng para. 0063. The coordinated schedule (i.e., message) is transmitted as a configuration (i.e., fragmented messages) to each V2X-capable UEs (i.e., marshaled vehicles) when the UEs are within range of a particular location (i.e., transmission criteria, based on distance). For these reasons, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
In response to applicant's argument, see Remarks, pg. 19-20, that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “fragmenting a data packet”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15: “…the plurality of marshaled vehicle is guided to a destination…” should be “…the plurality of marshaled vehicles is guided to a destination…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “infrastructure system configured to” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Corresponding structure: “transmitter” (para. 0031: “FIG. 2 is a graph 200 illustrating a packet error ratio wherein the x-axis is a communication range between a transmitter (e.g., the infrastructure system) and the one or more autonomous vehicles 102a-102e while the y-axis is a packet error ratio.”; para. 0019: “FIG. 1 illustrates a marshaling system 100 that facilitates an engagement of one or more autonomous vehicles 102a-102e with an infrastructure system (not shown).”).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 8-14, and 16 is/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.
Specifically, claim 3, 10, and 16 recite: “…wherein the one or more transmission criteria include [A] a distance each of the marshaled vehicles are from each road-side unit of the one or more road-side units, [B] a number of marshaled vehicles of the plurality of marshaled vehicles, [C] a number of waypoints associated with each of the marshaled vehicles, or [D] a combination thereof.” Due to limitation D, it is unclear whether each of the limitations A-C are required in the claimed invention. For example, the combination of limitations A and B could be required, but not limitation C, or claim C could be required, but not limitations A and B, or claims A, B, and C could be required. For this reason, claims 3, 10, and 16 are rejected as being indefinite. Examiner is interpreting claims 3, 10, and 16 as the “one or more transmission criteria” is A or B or C.
Specifically, claim 8 recites (in the last two lines): “…and be guided to a destination based on one or more waypoint commands contained in the received fragmented message.” Since both the “first marshaling group” and the “second marshaling group” receive a fragmented message, it is unclear whether the “received fragmented message” recited in the limitation quoted above is the first or second received fragmented message. Examiner is interpreting the “received fragmented message” as a “second received fragmented message” received by the second marshaling group. Adding the terms “first” and “second” before referencing the “received fragmented” messages would potentially help clarify which “received fragmented message” is being referenced. As claims 9-14 depend on independent claim 8, they are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20200183416-A1, hereinafter “Cheng” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 8, and analogous claims 1 and 15, Cheng discloses A system comprising:
an infrastructure system (Cheng, para. 0002: “The present disclosure relates generally to communication systems, and more particularly, to vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-everything (V2X), or other device-to-device (D2D) communication.”) configured to:
segment a plurality of marshaled vehicles into one or more marshaling groups based on a distance each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles are from a respective road-side unit of one or more road-side units (Cheng, para. 0063: “a network 602 may optionally configure one or more V2X-capable UEs (e.g., UE 606, 608) for use of a coordinated scheduling mode [i.e., segment a plurality of marshaled vehicles into one or more marshaling groups] by transmitting a configuration 612. The network 602 may configure the UEs (e.g., UE 606 and 608) to use the coordinated scheduling mode when the UE is within a range of a particular location [i.e., based on a distance each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles are from a respective road-side unit of one or more road-side units].”),
fragment a message into a plurality of smaller fragmented messages based on one or more transmission criteria, corresponding to each of the one or more marshaling groups, and transmit the plurality of smaller fragmented messages to each marshaled vehicle of the plurality of marshaled vehicles (Cheng, para. 0063: “a network 602 may optionally configure one or more V2X-capable UEs (e.g., UE 606, 608) for use of a coordinated scheduling mode by transmitting a configuration 612 [i.e., fragment a message into a plurality of smaller fragmented messages…and transmit the plurality of smaller fragmented messages to each marshaled vehicle of the plurality of marshaled vehicles]. The network 602 may configure the UEs (e.g., UE 606 and 608) [i.e., corresponding to each of the one or more marshaling groups] to use the coordinated scheduling mode when the UE is within a range of a particular location [i.e., based on one or more transmission criteria].”);
a first marshaling group configured to: receive a fragmented message of the plurality of smaller fragmented messages and be guided to a destination based on one or more waypoint commands contained in the received fragmented message (Cheng, para. 0059: “the RSU may schedule UE 504 to slow down and/or stop before turning left until UE 502 finishes proceeding straight through the intersection [i.e., guided to a destination based on one or more waypoint commands contained in the received fragmented message]. While the RSU transmits and receives data for coordinating maneuver scheduling, the scheduling logic can be processed remotely (e.g. using cloud computing) or locally (e.g. within the RSU itself).”; para. 0073: “After the RSU 604 determines the scheduled maneuver, the RSU 604 transmits a scheduled maneuver response 624 [i.e., a fragmented message of the plurality of smaller fragmented messages] to the requesting UE(s) 606 [i.e., a first marshaling group configured to: receive] and/or 608.”); and
a second marshaling group configured to: receive a fragmented message of the plurality of smaller fragmented messages that is different than the fragmented message received by the first marshaling group and be guided to a destination based on one or more waypoint commands contained in the received fragmented message (Cheng, para. 0059: “the RSU may schedule UE 504 to slow down and/or stop before turning left until UE 502 finishes proceeding straight through the intersection [i.e., guided to a destination based on one or more waypoint commands contained in the received fragmented message]. While the RSU transmits and receives data for coordinating maneuver scheduling, the scheduling logic can be processed remotely (e.g. using cloud computing) or locally (e.g. within the RSU itself).”; para. 0073: “After the RSU 604 determines the scheduled maneuver, the RSU 604 transmits a scheduled maneuver response 624 [i.e., a fragmented message of the plurality of smaller fragmented messages] to the requesting UE(s) 606 and/or 608 [i.e., a second marshaling group configured to: receive].”; para. 0072: “…the RSU 604 may determine at least one maneuver for a nearby UE. The RSU 604 may provide information to the UE(s) that schedules the maneuver(s) for the UE(s). The RSU 604 may determine maneuvers for multiple UEs and may schedule the UEs to operate in a manner that enables all of the UEs to move in their desired paths in a coordinated manner [i.e., receive a fragmented message of the plurality of smaller fragmented messages that is different than the fragmented message received by the first marshaling group].”).
Regarding claim 9, and analogous claim 2, Cheng discloses The system of claim 8,
wherein the plurality of marshaled vehicles is segmented, based at least in part on, a number of waypoints associated with each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles (Cheng, para. 0063: “Thus, the UEs 606 and 608 [i.e., plurality of marshaled vehicles] may identify the maneuver coordinator, e.g., RSU 604, based on a current location of the UE in combination with the information from configuration 612 [i.e., the plurality of marshaled vehicles is segmented]. For example, referring to FIG. 6, the network 602 may configure UE 608 to use RSU scheduling when UE 608 enters the intersection where the RSU 604 is located [i.e., based at least in part on, a number of waypoints associated with each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles].”).
Regarding claim 11, and analogous claims 4 and 17, Cheng discloses The system of claim 8,
wherein the infrastructure system is further configured to: update the segmentation of the plurality of marshaled vehicles based on an updated distance each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles are from the respective road-side unit (Cheng, para. 0063: “a network 602 may optionally configure one or more V2X-capable UEs (e.g., UE 606, 608) for use of a coordinated scheduling mode by transmitting a configuration 612. The network 602 may configure the UEs (e.g., UE 606 and 608) to use the coordinated scheduling mode when the UE is within a range of a particular location [i.e., update the segmentation of the plurality of marshaled vehicles based on an updated distance each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles are from the respective road-side unit].”).
Regarding claim 14, and analogous claims 7 and 20, Cheng discloses The system of claim 8,
wherein the first marshaling group is disposed within a marshaling zone and the second marshaling group is disposed within a non-marshaling zone (Cheng, para. 0063: “…the network 602 may configure UE 608 to use RSU scheduling when UE 608 enters the intersection where the RSU 604 is located [i.e., the first marshaling group is disposed within a marshaling zone].”; para. 0064: “The configuration 612 may also be sent from a V2X application server outside of the EPC or Core Network. For example, referring to FIG. 6, the manufacturer of UE 606 may preconfigure the UE for V2X operation and RSU scheduling by running the V2X application server prior to the UE 606 entering a location such as an intersection [i.e., second marshaling group is disposed within a non-marshaling zone]. Therefore, as illustrated in FIG. 6 in one aspect, the network 602 may not transmit RSU scheduling configuration to UE 606, but may transmit RSU scheduling configuration to UE 608.”), and
wherein a high-priority fragmented message is transmitted to the first marshaling group and a low-priority fragmented message is transmitted to the second marshaling group (Cheng, para. 0064: “The configuration 612 may also be sent from a V2X application server outside of the EPC or Core Network. For example, referring to FIG. 6, the manufacturer of UE 606 may preconfigure the UE for V2X operation and RSU scheduling by running the V2X application server prior to the UE 606 entering a location such as an intersection. Therefore, as illustrated in FIG. 6 in one aspect, the network 602 may not transmit RSU scheduling configuration to UE 606 [i.e., a low-priority fragmented message is transmitted to the second marshaling group], but may transmit RSU scheduling configuration to UE 608 [i.e. a high-priority fragmented message is transmitted to the first marshaling group].”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, above, and further in view of US-20100267344-A1, hereinafter “Guner” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 10, and analogous claims 3 and 16, Cheng discloses The system of claim 8, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
wherein a frequency of the transmission of the plurality of smaller fragmented messages is adjustable based on the one or more transmission criteria, and wherein the one or more transmission criteria include a distance each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles are from each road-side unit of the one or more road-side units, a number of marshaled vehicles of the plurality of marshaled vehicles, a number of waypoints associated with each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles, or a combination thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Guner teaches:
wherein a frequency of the transmission of the plurality of smaller fragmented messages is adjustable based on the one or more transmission criteria (Guner, para. 0025: “…the present invention allows the sending unit to selectively adjust transmission parameters appropriate to the current conditions, based on the observed channel characteristics, thus improving the probability of message delivery and reducing channel loading.”), and
wherein the one or more transmission criteria include a distance each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles are from each road-side unit of the one or more road-side units, a number of marshaled vehicles of the plurality of marshaled vehicles, a number of waypoints associated with each of the plurality of marshaled vehicles, or a combination thereof (Guner, para. 0061: “In a low-density environment [i.e., wherein the one or more transmission criteria include…a number of marshaled vehicles of the plurality of marshaled vehicles,], devices may broadcast messages robustly. Here, robustness is defined to include one or more of: increased transmission rate, higher transmit power, higher forward error correction code rate, and lower modulation rate. A more robust set of transmission parameters is more likely to result in a successful transmission.”; para. 0062: “In a high density vehicular environment [i.e., wherein the one or more transmission criteria include…a number of marshaled vehicles of the plurality of marshaled vehicles,], a different transmission strategy is desirable. In this environment, it is likely that the channel will become overloaded, resulting in delayed transmissions due to congestion and lost transmissions due to collisions. These effects can be controlled to some degree via the following means. Decreasing the message transmission rate will reduce the loading on the channel.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cheng, with the concept of adjusting wireless message transmission frequency based on transmission criteria, like the distance between the transceiver and receiver(s), taught by Guner, in order to improve the reliability of message transmission in a wireless communication network (Guner, para. 0025: “…the present invention allows the sending unit to selectively adjust transmission parameters appropriate to the current conditions, based on the observed channel characteristics, thus improving the probability of message delivery and reducing channel loading.”).
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, above, and further in view of US-6185208-B1, hereinafter “Liao” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 12, and analogous claims 5 and 18, Cheng discloses The system of claim 8, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the infrastructure system configured to fragment the message is further configured to: determine a number of bytes required to define one or more maneuver commands for each marshaled vehicle of the plurality of marshaled vehicles.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liao teaches:
wherein the infrastructure system configured to fragment the message is further configured to: determine a number of bytes required to define one or more maneuver commands for each marshaled vehicle of the plurality of marshaled vehicles (Liao, col. 4, line 13: “The invention relates to improved techniques for providing reference numbers for purposes of fragmenting a message for transmission over a network (e.g., a wireless data network) supporting only a limited size message. The reference numbers for the fragmented messages are shared by groups of destinations (e.g., subscribers or mobile devices) [i.e., to define one or more maneuver commands for each marshaled vehicle of the plurality of marshaled vehicles]. As a result, the number of reference numbers to be stored is small compared to the number of possible destinations, and the size of the reference numbers themselves is also kept small. The number of groupings and the size of the reference numbers can also be adjusted to fit system objectives.”; col. 6, line 6: “When the decision block 306 determines that the message size is not greater than the predetermined maximum size [i.e., determine a number of bytes required], then fragmentation is not required.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cheng, with the concept of determining the number of bytes required to transmit a message on a wireless communication network, taught by Liao, in order to reduce the amount of network bandwidth required to transmit a message and increase transmission efficiency (Liao, col. 2, line 16: “Another conventional approach uses a single, large reference number for all transmission from a source location. For example, the large reference number can be 64 bits or more. The reference number needs to be large to minimize the likelihood that an overlap in reference number to the same destination location could occur. The problem with this approach is that the large size of the reference number consumes a significant portion of the bandwidth of each fragment or sub-message being transmitted.”).
Regarding claim 13, and analogous claims 6 and 19, Cheng and Liao teach The system of claim 12, and Liao further teaches the following:
wherein the infrastructure system configured to segment the plurality of marshaled vehicles is further configured to: generate one or more marshaling group combinations based on the determination of the number of bytes (Liao, col. 4, line 13: “The invention relates to improved techniques for providing reference numbers for purposes of fragmenting a message for transmission over a network (e.g., a wireless data network) supporting only a limited size message. The reference numbers for the fragmented messages are shared by groups of destinations (e.g., subscribers or mobile devices) [i.e., generate one or more marshaling group combinations based on the determination of the number of bytes]. As a result, the number of reference numbers to be stored is small compared to the number of possible destinations, and the size of the reference numbers themselves is also kept small. The number of groupings and the size of the reference numbers can also be adjusted to fit system objectives.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Cheng, as modified by Liao, with the concept of determining the number of bytes required to transmit a message on a wireless communication network and grouping receivers based on the size of the message, taught by Liao, in order to reduce the amount of network bandwidth required to transmit a message and increase transmission efficiency (Liao, col. 2, line 16: “Another conventional approach uses a single, large reference number for all transmission from a source location. For example, the large reference number can be 64 bits or more. The reference number needs to be large to minimize the likelihood that an overlap in reference number to the same destination location could occur. The problem with this approach is that the large size of the reference number consumes a significant portion of the bandwidth of each fragment or sub-message being transmitted.”).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20210067926-A1 (2021-03-04) | “Disclosed herein is a method of transmitting a collective perception message (CPM) at a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication apparatus of a vehicle. A method of transmitting V2X message of a vehicle includes generating a collective perception (CP) message including information on a plurality of objects detected by the vehicle, determining whether to fragment the CP message depending on whether a size of the CP message is greater than a predefined size, fragmenting the CP message based on the plurality of detected objects, upon determining that the CP message is fragmented, and transmitting the fragmented CP messages.”
WO-2022206480-A1 (2022-10-06) | Fragmenting data packets for transmission to network device groups. “However, in the traditional data packet sending method, the control device can only send the same data packet to multiple network devices, which cannot meet the requirement of different network devices using different data packets…Embodiments of the present application provide a method and device for sending data packets, which are used to divide multiple network devices into multiple network device groups according to the required data packets, and send the required data packets to the network device groups, so as to The network device can obtain the required data packets.” Relevant to claims 1, 8, and 15.
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 Leah N Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:30pm 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/L.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663