CTNF 18/713,355 CTNF 83030 DETAILED ACTION This is in response to the Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on 24 May 2024 in which claims 1-20 are currently pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 24 May 2024, have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms). Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 12, 13, 14, it is unclear what the claimed limitation “and/or” is meant to encompass . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1, 15-20 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. Regarding claim 1, the language of the claim is awkward. The full claim appears to be the preamble leaving no body with active limitations. There is no clear distinction between the preamble and the body of the claim. Additionally, the claim is directed to a method but the body of the claim does not contain any series of steps. Separately, regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by the following claimed limitation “either in messages of the second type which are separate to the messages of the first type, or are extracted from the respective message of the second type and transmitted as part of a respective message of the first type”. It is also unclear how these limitations correlate to the rest of the claim. The claim language and spacing is confusing. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. For examination on the merits, the claim will be interpreted as best understood. Claim 15 is directed to a “vehicle-to-X communication module”; however, the body of the claim contains no clear structure or elements. It is also unclear whether the “communication module” is meant to be an actual machine or could be considered software per se. Since the claim does not include any structural components, claim 15 is indefinite. Claims 16-20 depend from claim 15; therefore, they contain the same problem as explained above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepp et al. (PG Pub US 2021/0144667 A1) in view of Ryshakov et al. (PG Pub US 2014/0022969 A1) . Regarding claims 1, 15, Lepp discloses a method and a vehicle-to-X communication module. transmitting vehicle-to-X messages (“vehicle-related information (such as in V2X communications)” [0023]) of a first type (“delay intolerant messages” [0050] or “non-periodic messages” [0051]) and a second type (“delay tolerant messages” [0050] or “periodic messages” [0051]), each message comprises payload data (“payload data” [0053]) and control data (“header information from which the priorities can be determined” [0073], “overhead information” [0088]), the messages of the first type are transmitted at least within a period of time at a transmission rate (“a scheduled time of transmission for a first periodic message” [0052], “higher communication throughput” [0053]), payload data of the messages of the second type are transmitted, either in messages of the second type which are separate to the messages of the first type, or are extracted from the respective message of the second type and transmitted as part of a respective message of the first type (“decide to aggregate or not” [0123], “aggregation of the delay tolerant messages with other messages (delay tolerant or delay intolerant messages)” [0050], “The aggregating of the selected messages into the single transmission can include aggregating at least one of the periodic messages with at least one of the non-periodic messages or another periodic message” [0051], “the process can determine a scheduled time of transmission for a first periodic message, and can use the scheduled time to select the first periodic message for aggregation with another message into the single transmission” [0052]). However, Lepp does not explicitly disclose depending on their respective ratio of control data to payload data and a transmission rate. Nevertheless, Ryshakov discloses “data packets 450 can have unfavorably high ratio of overhead 410 to payload 430, particularly where payloads 430 are relatively small .. small payloads with very large overhead” [0047], “the ratio of overhead 410 to payload 430 can be reduced by aggregating multiple payloads 430 into a single data packet 450” [0048], and “a data rate of 250 Kbit/s” [0041]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have depending on their respective ratio of control data to payload data because it will allow “reduced power consumption and network synchronization time for WSDs 110” [0051] and “increase efficiency” [0052]. Regarding claims 2, 16, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Ryshakov discloses the payload data of the messages of the second type are transmitted in separate messages of the second type if the ratio is at most as high as a threshold value (“data packets 450 can have unfavorably high ratio of overhead 410 to payload 430” [0047], “the ratio of overhead 410 to payload 430 can be reduced by aggregating multiple payloads 430 into a single data packet 450” [0048], “threshold” [0056]). Regarding claims 3, 17, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Ryshakov discloses payload data of the messages of the second type are transmitted as part of a respective message of the first type if the ratio is greater than the threshold value (“data packets 450 can have unfavorably high ratio of overhead 410 to payload 430” [0047], “the ratio of overhead 410 to payload 430 can be reduced by aggregating multiple payloads 430 into a single data packet 450” [0048], “threshold” [0056]). Regarding claims 4, 18, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Ryshakov discloses the more payload data of the messages of the second type are transmitted as part of a respective message of the first type, the greater the ratio (“data packets 450 can have unfavorably high ratio of overhead 410 to payload 430” [0047], “the ratio of overhead 410 to payload 430 can be reduced by aggregating multiple payloads 430 into a single data packet 450” [0048]). Regarding claims 5, 19, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Lepp discloses a message of the first type, which contains payload data of a message of the second type, has less control data than a sum of the control data of the message of the first type and the message of the second type (“Once the MPDUs 402, 404, and 406 are aggregated into the aggregated MPDU (A-MPDU) 408, just one channel access delay and other overhead information is included in the aggregated MPDU, rather than the multiple channel access delays and overhead information of the MPDUs 402, 404, and 406” [0088], “reduces inter-frame time gaps and other overheads” [0054]). Regarding claims 6, 20, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Lepp discloses a message of the first type, which contains payload data of a message of the second type, has just as much control data as a message of the first type without the payload data of the message of the second type (“just one channel access delay and other overhead information is included in the aggregated MPDU, rather than the multiple channel access delays and overhead information of the MPDUs 402, 404, and 406” [0088]). Regarding claim 7, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Lepp discloses the payload data of a message of the second type are transmitted in a container of a message of the first type (“aggregation of the delay tolerant messages with other messages (delay tolerant or delay intolerant messages)” [0050], “multiple messages aggregated into a single transmission” [0044]). Regarding claim 11, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Lepp discloses the messages of the second type, or the payload data thereof, contain information relating to one or more of the following categories: identified external objects, maneuver planning (“A “vehicle-related information” can refer to information that includes data pertaining to a vehicle or an infrastructure that supports vehicles (e.g., RSUs, traffic lights, traffic signs, etc.); control information that affects operations of a vehicle or an infrastructure that supports vehicles; navigation data; and any other information that is directly or indirectly associated with vehicles” [0018]). Regarding claim 12, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Ryshakov discloses the transmission rate specifies a constant time interval between messages of the first type and/or a transmission pattern for messages of the first type within the period of time (“time P and a certain data rate S .. a data rate of 250 Kbit/s” [0041]). Regarding claim 13, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Lepp discloses the messages of the first type are cooperative awareness messages, basic safety messages, beacon messages and/or messages about location, speed and/or route of a vehicle (“A “vehicle-related information” can refer to information that includes data pertaining to a vehicle or an infrastructure that supports vehicles (e.g., RSUs, traffic lights, traffic signs, etc.); control information that affects operations of a vehicle or an infrastructure that supports vehicles; navigation data; and any other information that is directly or indirectly associated with vehicles” [0018], “vehicle-related information from multiple sources for transmission to another entity, where the sources can include internal sources (e.g., electronic control units (ECUs), etc.) and/or external sources (e.g., from user devices of passengers and/or drivers of vehicles, etc.)” [0025]). Regarding claim 14, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Lepp discloses the messages of the second type are maneuver coordination messages, cooperative awareness messages, decentralized environment notification messages, event-based messages and/or messages about an object external to the transmitter and/or about an event (“A “vehicle-related information” can refer to information that includes data pertaining to a vehicle or an infrastructure that supports vehicles (e.g., RSUs, traffic lights, traffic signs, etc.); control information that affects operations of a vehicle or an infrastructure that supports vehicles; navigation data; and any other information that is directly or indirectly associated with vehicles” [0018]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepp, Ryshakov further in view of Mansour et al. (PG Pub US 2018/0131465 A1) . Regarding claim 8, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. However, Lepp, Ryshakov does not explicitly disclose a channel load is also determined. Nevertheless, Mansour discloses “a traffic load of the radio channel 120-122” [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a channel load also be determined because “the aggregation scheme can be tailored to the particular channel condition” [0047]. Regarding claim 9, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Mansour discloses the payload data of the messages of the second type are also transmitted, depending on the channel load, either in messages of the second type which are separate to the messages of the first type, or transmitted as part of a respective message of the first type (“aggregated into the probing packet 202 based on at least one of the following: a previously determined BER associated with communicating on the radio channel 120-122; a traffic load of the radio channel 120-122 .. with a traffic load of the radio channel 120-122 is high, it can be desirable to limit the overall length of the probing packet 202; hence, to limit the count of the aggregated data packets 201” [0047]). Regarding claim 10, Lepp, Ryshakov discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Mansour discloses a first channel load of a first channel is determined and a second channel load of a second channel is determined, and wherein the messages are distributed to the first channel and the second channel depending on the channel loads (“aggregated into the probing packet 202 based on at least one of the following: a previously determined BER associated with communicating on the radio channel 120-122; a traffic load of the radio channel 120-122 .. with a traffic load of the radio channel 120-122 is high, it can be desirable to limit the overall length of the probing packet 202; hence, to limit the count of the aggregated data packets 201” [0047]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE D FUQUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 6 PM EST with every other Friday off. 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. 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. CHRISTINE DUONG FUQUA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2462 /CHRISTINE T DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462 04/30/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/713,355 Page 2 Art Unit: 2462 Application/Control Number: 18/713,355 Page 4 Art Unit: 2462 Application/Control Number: 18/713,355 Page 5 Art Unit: 2462 Application/Control Number: 18/713,355 Page 6 Art Unit: 2462 Application/Control Number: 18/713,355 Page 7 Art Unit: 2462 Application/Control Number: 18/713,355 Page 8 Art Unit: 2462 Application/Control Number: 18/713,355 Page 9 Art Unit: 2462 Application/Control Number: 18/713,355 Page 10 Art Unit: 2462 Application/Control Number: 18/713,355 Page 11 Art Unit: 2462
Prosecution Insights