DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2026-07-01 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9
With regards to:
configuring at the first remote server of the vehicular knowledge sharing network a set of network links between the vehicle and the end entity based on the determined criterion; (action performed by first remote server)
The phrase “configuring” is grammatically incorrect. It should be “configure.”
35 USC §112(a) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Claim(s) 1, 9, 16 and 2-8, 10-15, 17-20
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claim(s) recite variants of:
configuring at the first remote server of the vehicular knowledge sharing network a set of network links between the vehicle and the end entity based on the determined criterion; (action performed by first remote server)
determining whether the vehicle created knowledge to be transmitted to the end entity,
wherein the knowledge comprises patterns of information generated by processing sensor data from the vehicle; (action performed by first remote server)
deploying the set of network links from the first remote server to a second remote server of the vehicular knowledge sharing network based on a determination that the vehicle created knowledge to be transmitted to the end entity; and (action performed by first remote server)
transmitting the knowledge from the second remote server to the end entity in accordance with the set of network links. (action performed by second remote server)
In some cases, limitations at face value is self-sufficient with regards to demonstrating possession of the claimed invention. For example, the phase “wherein the device is a mobile phone” is simple enough (i.e., requires a very low technical threshold of understanding to implement) such the phase alone without further detail would sufficiently demonstrates to one skilled in the art that an inventor(s) had possession of the phrase. In other cases, limitations at face-value is not self-sufficient because the limitation requires a higher level of technical considerations and understanding to practice. For example, the phase “wherein the device is a mobile phone that is configured to utilize a differential equation to minimize interference based on the number of antennas used by a neighboring mobile phone” requires further detail in order to demonstration possession because of the higher technical considerations required to practice the phrase. For example, one skilled in the art reading the phase would need further details that disclosed: “What particular differential equation is used?”, “How does the equation cause the net result of minimizing interference? “How does the mobile phone know how many antennas the neighboring phones is using?” etc.
The Examiner purports that the claimed limitation(s) above requires further detail in order to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claim invention. While the Examiner did find citations in the Specification corresponding to the claim text above, the citations in the Specification simply repeat the high-level language cited in the claims (i.e., the Specification effectively copies the claim limitation(s) and does not provide further technical detail as to how the limitation(s) are practiced).
More specifically, the Specification lacks details with regards to how the claimed system/method implements the network links among a network including vehicles, end entities and intermediate servers. Discussed below are critical details the Specification fails to disclose in order to as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Specification is unclear as to where the system architecture of FIG. 3 or computing device of FIG. 5 is disposed in within the network. Is it in a remote server? Is it in an edge server? In a vehicle? Is it in a separate network node not show in FIG. 2? Claim 9 suggests the system is a single device – the first server however the steps are performed at different devices as further detailed in other USC112(a) rejections below.
The Specification fails to describe how particularly does the claimed system implements the preparation and deployment of network links among multiple nodes (vehicles, remote, servers, edge servers, end entities, etc. in the network). In other words, deployment of network links to establish a path between a vehicle and end entity requires a plurality of individual, direct links to be established between multiple devices in the network (i.e., configuring next hop paths for each node in the path). How does one system force/configure all the other nodes in the network to establish links with its neighbors? For example, using FIG. 2, if vehicle 222 needs to exchange knowledge with edge server 220B via servers 210b, 210a, 210h, and 210d, the Specification fails to describe how a system implements a path by forcing/configuring all the nodes involved (vehicle 222, edge server 220B, servers 210b, 210a, 210h, and 210d) to establish and use a path to communicate the knowledge between the vehicle and edge server. If the system is an independent node itself, how does that system device control the other nodes device in order to “prepare” or “deploy” the network links across said nodes? This is lack of detail is apparent in that the Specification fails to disclose at least one particular protocol sharing network uses.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim(s) 9, 16 and 10-15, 17-20
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claim(s) 9, 16 recite variants of processor executing instructions stored on memory to perform:
determine, at a first server of a plurality of servers of a vehicular knowledge sharing network, a plurality of criteria…
configuring at a first remote server of the plurality of remote servers a set of network links between the vehicle and the end entity traversing the plurality of remote servers based on the plurality of criteria;
determine whether the vehicle created knowledge to be transmitted to the end entity, wherein the knowledge comprises patterns of information generated by processing sensor data from the vehicle;
deploy the set of network links from the first remote server to a second remote server of the plurality of remote servers based on a determination that the vehicle created knowledge to be transmitted to the end entity; and
transmit the knowledge from the second remote server between the plurality of remote servers to the end entity in accordance with the set of network links.
In other words, the claims are effectively directed to a single device having processors, a memory storing instructions executed by the processors to cause the device to perform actions 1-5. However, the claim features require that the action be performed by different devices:
Action 1: Performed by a first server
Action 2: Performed by a first remote server
Action 3: unspecified
Action 4: Performed by the first remote server
Action 5: Performed by second remote server
Consequently, the claim is directed to a device but the claimed functionality is performed by separate devices as apparent that at least actions 1-2, 4, 5 require actions performed by distinct, different devices. The Specification fails to how a single set of processors/memory/instructions are causing execution of actions are multiple devices (i.e., a processor/memory/instruction is causing step to occur on more than one server, as if multiple servers are sharing a processor and code).
Similar logic and arguments applies to claim 16 where a CRM executed by a processor(s) is executing steps using different devices (a first remote server and a second remote server).
Response to Arguments
The following arguments in the Reply have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
USC112(a): It appears the Applicant’s amendment clarify the independent claims in such a manner that it is intended that the claims are from the perspective from a first remote server. Such that the path between devices is effectively:
VEHICLE <> First remote Server (FRS) <> Second Remote Server (SRS) <> End entity
And that the invention is directed to a FRS configuring itself to deploy a set of network links between the FRS and SRS, which the set of links are also technically “between the vehicle and end entity” since path between the FRS and SRS is a sub-path within the main path between the vehicle and end entity.
Based on the Reply’s remarks:
The remote servers can be configured based on the set of network links to transmit the knowledge to the next appropriate remote server in the path until the path is completed." Specification at [0041]. Once the knowledge path is completed, the links may be released. Id. There is no "forcing" involved between these different servers and entities because they are already configured and connected via the vehicular knowledge sharing network.
This suggests each remote server is autonomously configuring their own respective set of network links to the next remote server or end entity (depending on what the remote server is in the intermediate chain) without external configuration from other, remote devices. As such, “the system” as described in the Specification for FIG. 3 is effectively a respective, remote server. However, the Specification for FIG. 3 does not explicitly (or at least clearly) disclose this. “The system” simply described as a nebulous architecture that is not confined to a particular remote server. In fact reading para. 0039-0046 it is unclear what the “system” is as some cases it suggest the “system” encompasses multiple devices – the Specification never uses the phrase “respective” or “particular” and as best as the examiner can tell when the phrase “set of links network links” is used, it is to describe all the links between the vehicle and end entity, not a particular set of sub-links directly between two devices.
Even so, the Specification even fails to describe how the links are pre-configured among the devices and how said network links are deployed and undeployed (i.e., stored). This is apparent in that the Specification fails to a specific example of how the configuration, deployment and unemployment is executed using a specific network communication protocol. Rather it uses high-level language. If the network is a wired ethernet network? If so, how are the devices preconfigured with the links – does this mean a physical cat 6 cable is connected to RJ45 ports of each device or does this mean a pre-configured routing table is installed at each server? How does undeployment work – does a human go out and disconnect the cat 6 cables once there is no knowledge to be transferred? If it’s wireless, are they using a WLAN protocol or IEEE Wi-Fi or short range protocol (e.g., Bluetooth)? If so, how is the deployment of links actually executed (i.e., tell me specifically happens when “deploying the set of network links” occurs)? Is it establishing a new channel or simply causing pre-existing link to be switched from inactive to activated. The execution of these claim features would be wildly different depending what protocol and technology is being used and the Specification fails to disclose implementation of at least one specific protocol/technology.
The Reply’s arguments with respect to the other matters have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the rejection(s), which was necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights