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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01 July 2026 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Dees in view of Karimi-Cherkandi.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dees et al. (US 2023/0345456) and Karimi-Cherkandi et al. (US 2015/0004974).
Regarding claim 1, Dees discloses a computer implemented method (paras. 97 and 214) comprising: determining candidate mobile access points (APs) having sufficient available storage capacities to receive the sender data of a sender vehicle (para. 206, last thirteen lines; note: peer device receiving buffer capacities from relay devices; para. 209; note: device as a vehicle); selecting a designated mobile AP from the candidate mobile APs based on a comparison of signal strengths among the candidate mobile APs, wherein the signal strengths are evaluated based on one or more communication parameters corresponding to the candidate mobile APs respective to the sender vehicle (para. 206, last thirteen lines; note: selection based on buffer capacity and signal strength / RSRP); and sending the sender data of the sender vehicle to the designated mobile AP (para. 43, lines 21-27; note: relaying data through a relay device).
However, Dees fails to disclose selecting a designated mobile AP from the candidate mobile APs based on a comparison of signal strengths among the candidate mobile APs, wherein the signal strengths are evaluated based on one or more communication parameters and one or more navigation parameters corresponding to the candidate mobile APs respective to the sender vehicle. Karimi-Cherkandi discloses selecting a device based on signal strength and relative navigation parameters of direction of motion, location and speed (paras. 41-45; para. 46; note: rate of change of a signal strength based on motion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selecting a designated mobile AP from the candidate mobile APs based on a comparison of signal strengths among the candidate mobile APs, wherein the signal strengths are evaluated based on one or more communication parameters and one or more navigation parameters corresponding to the candidate mobile APs respective to the sender vehicle in the invention of Dees. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, as is known in the art (selecting a device that will have a longer communication coverage as is known in the art (Karimi-Cherkandi, paras. 41-46; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Dees in view of Karimi-Cherkandi teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to receiving information from a first mobile AP of the candidate mobile APs, sending a signal for transmitting the sender data to the first mobile AP (Dees, paras. 51, 80 and 206; note: reselection of a previously used device where the reselection is based on information from the devices).
Regarding claim 7, Dees in view of Karimi-Cherkandi teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation parameters comprise information comprises a current location, direction of movement, speed, travel duration, or destination of the candidate first mobile APs (Karimi-Cherkandi, paras. 41-46).
Regarding claim 8, Dees in view of Karimi-Cherkandi teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the designated mobile AP has a highest signal strength with the sender vehicle among the candidate from the first mobile AP and the other available mobile APs (Karimi-Cherkandi, para. 42; note: highest signal strength over a period of time).
Regarding claims 13 and 16, these limitations are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1 and 8, respectively. In addition, Dees discloses a vehicle control system (fig. 1; para. 206 and 209; note: a device as a vehicle and system-level communication control by devices for communication control of the vehicle) comprising (paras. 97 and 214): a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations of the method of claims 1 and 8 (note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system or processor is not limited to one memory device and one processor - specification of the instant application, para. 87).
Regarding claim 20, these limitations are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1. In addition, Dees discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium (paras. 97 and 214; note: system-level communication control by devices for communication of a vehicle; note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of a medium is not limited to one memory device - specification of the instant application, para. 87) having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations of the method of claim 1.
Claims 4, 9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dees in view of Karimi-Cherkandi as applied to claim 1 or 13 above, and further in view of Ogura et al. (US 2021/0084563).
Regarding claim 4, Dees in view of Karimi-Cherkandi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information received from the first mobile AP comprises data storage capacity (Dees, paras. 81 and 206) and identification information (Dees, para. 152; note: RNTI; para. 199; note: buffer identifier). However, Dees in view of Karimi-Cherkandi fails to teach and make obvious the information comprises communication settings and navigation information. Ogura discloses this feature (figs. 7 and 10-11; paras. 110-111 and 129; note: protocol identifier and movement vector; paras.181-182 and 185). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the information comprise communication settings and navigation information in the invention of Dees in view of Karimi-Cherkandi. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing exchanged data to determine an optimal relay connection as is known in the art (Ogura, figs. 7 and 10-11, and paras. 110-111, 129, 181-182 and 185; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 9, Dees in view of Karimi-Cherkandi fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the designated mobile AP is chosen, in part, based on its trajectory as compared to a trajectory of the sender vehicle. However, Ogura discloses this feature (figs. 10 and 12, and paras. 181-182 and 184-186; note: devices on the same train versus different trains, or devices moving in similar directions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the designated mobile AP chosen, in part, based on its trajectory as compared to a trajectory of the sender vehicle in the invention of Dees in view of Karimi-Cherkandi. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, provide an optimal relay connection as is known in the art (Ogura, paras. 181-182 and 184-186; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 14 and 17, these limitations are rejected on the same grounds as claim 4 and 9, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26 are allowed.
Claims 11-12 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights