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 action is in response to the application filed on ----6/25/2024 for application 18/752, 955. Claim 1 – 15 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 7/22/2024.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action by applicant is require at this time.
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.
Such claim limitation is:
“mapping module … configured to” in Claim 1,
“event notification module … configured to” in Claim 3,
“compression determination module … configured to” in Claim 4,
“driving behaviour module … configured to” in Claim 5,
“routing module … configured to” in Claim 6,
“nominal data transmission need prediction module … configured to” in Claim 8,
“nominal data transmission need receiving module … configured to” in Claim 9,
“nominal data transmission need transmitting module … configured to” in Claim 10,
“event prediction module … configured to” in Claim 11
Structure for these limitation maybe found at least at [0059] of the instant application as “modules may comprise hardware, software or a combination of hardware and software”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (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).
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 3, 10 – 11, and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Long et al., (hereinafter Long), CN110650460.
Claim 1. Long discloses: An apparatus comprising: at least one processing core and at least one memory in communication therewith storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing core (translation page 1, “a vehicle-mounted opportunistic network file scheduling and data transmission algorithm”; It is inherent that the algorithm of Long’s disclosure is executed by a computing apparatus having processing unit and memory), cause the apparatus at least to:
store information of a first set of data items stored in a first vehicle, the data items of the first set being each assigned a respective priority value (refer to the mapping above and translation page 1, “computing node in the sending queue transmission order file, and selecting a file (data item) to be sent”; the files/data items of the vehicle (first vehicle) are stored in an orderly (priority) queue),
obtain, for the first vehicle, a first set of future connectivity opportunities, each future connectivity opportunity comprising a future time and a location that the future connectivity opportunity is predicted to occur at (translation page 1, “the vehicle node in the driving process of the driving route state information of the neighbour node periodically broadcast itself and in a future period of time, and calculating the link duration set”; fig. 5 & translation page 2, “vehicle A enters the base station covering area … the vehicle B entering the base station coverage area”; i.e., the system/algorithm of Long constantly receive and calculate the future connection opportunities at locations; translation page 5, “establishing meeting probability based data transmission model, selecting proper speed difference and the time interval of the communication distance between the vehicle and an intermediate node and providing effective theoretical analysis tool to finish the data transmission”, i.e., the system/algorithm predicts/estimate the probability of the connectivity), and
send instructions to a vehicle application of the first vehicle, the instructions instructing the first vehicle to transmit at least one from among the first set of data items during at least one from among the first set of future connectivity opportunities (refer to the mapping above & translation page 4, “Because the link duration by vehicle speed and travel direction and other factors of influence, it can accurately estimate the duration of the link according to the vehicle of the current state and history record, then reasonable arrangement of the file scheduling sequence, so that in the transmission process, may preferentially schedule duration can finish the transmission of the current link file, changes the transmission mechanism the traditional first-in first-out, so as to in the vehicle opportunistic network quickly and reliably finish the transmission of data between nodes”; the system select file (data item) in the ordered queue that the transmission can be completed during an opportunity at a base station covering area); and
a mapping module, in communication with the at least one processing core and at least one memory, configured to map the data items to be transmitted to the at least one connectivity opportunity based at least in part on the priority values assigned to the data items (refer to the mapping above, the system/algorithm arranges/maps files/data items to connection opportunities).
Claim 3. Long teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Long further teach: an event notification module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to receive an event notification from the first vehicle, determine, based on the event notification, a data item from among the first set of data items that should be transmitted using a dynamically selected future connectivity opportunity from among the first set of future connectivity opportunities or a currently active connectivity opportunity, and to send instructions to the vehicle application of the first vehicle to transmit the determined data item during the selected future connectivity opportunity or the currently active connectivity opportunity (refer to the mapping above & translation page 5 – 6, “if the file closest to the link duration time, S to send the file list in the sequence Y, if the file transmission cut-off time greater than the link duration, then delaying the sending of the file, waiting for establishment of the next link,” i.e., if the data item/file can be transmitted during the currently identified connection, the algorithm instructs the system to send the file(s)/data items in the currently identified connection. Otherwise, the system waiting for future connection event/opportunity to send the file).
Claim 10. Long teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Long further teach: a nominal data transmission need transmitting module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to obtain a nominal data transmission need of the first vehicle at one or more of the times and locations corresponding to the first set of connectivity opportunities, and transmit information of the nominal data transmission need of the first vehicle to at least one other vehicle and/or at least one other vehicle planning apparatus (fig. 5 & translation page 4, “vehicle and intermediate node of the communication state”; e.g., other vehicle may act as an intermediate node for the planning and transmission of data (nominal data)).
Claim 11. Long teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Long further teach: an event prediction module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to receive route information of the first vehicle, predict or obtain information of a predicted event of a future route segment of at least one connectivity opportunity, and determine and output a minimum data transmission capacity that should be available at the future route segment of the at least one connectivity opportunity, the size of the minimum data transmission capacity being based on the predicted event, wherein obtaining the first set of connectivity opportunities is based on the output from the event prediction module (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & translation page 6, “The link duration to send the file. if the file closest to the link duration time, S to send the file list in the sequence Y, if the file transmission cut-off time greater than the link duration, then delaying the sending of the file, waiting for establishment of the next link”, “transmission time to calculate according to the ratio of size and transmission rate of the file”; i.e., each communication opportunities in the navigation route are predicted/calculated and the required file transmission duration (minimum data transmission capacity) is compared with the connection opportunity duration (available transmission capacity)).
Claim 14 and 15 are the corresponding method and non-transitory computer readable medium claim of Claim 1. Claim 14 and 15 are rejected with same reason. Long teaches the method/algorithm executed among “vehicle node”/”computing node”, one of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium and computer readable instruction are inherent in Long’s teaching.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., (hereinafter Long), CN110650460 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moore et al., (hereinafter Moore), US20100251007.
Claim 2. Long discloses all the limitation of Claim 1, Long does not explicitly teach: send instructions to the vehicle application of the first vehicle to transmit a specific data item from the first set of data items such that a first part of the specific data item is transmitted during one future connectivity opportunity and a second part of the specific data item is transmitted during another future connectivity opportunity.
Moore, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
send instructions to the vehicle application of the first vehicle to transmit a specific data item from the first set of data items such that a first part of the specific data item is transmitted during one future connectivity opportunity and a second part of the specific data item is transmitted during another future connectivity opportunity (Moore, 0015, “Systems and methods are disclosed herein that relate to an enhanced file transfer (EFT) method or process for exchanging data regardless of the physical structure and functionality of the network communications hardware and devices. This EFT enables the resumption of file transfers that have been interrupted for some reason. The EFT process, in some embodiments, couples information related to internal conditions and external conditions of a mobile device and allows for the dynamic adjustment of when and how data is transferred.”).
Long and Moore both teach data transfer on mobile/moving devices and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the enhanced file transfer method of Moore’s teaching in the system/algorithm of Long to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to “enhance the ability of file transfers in wireless environments” (Moore 0003) and “reducing redundant data transfer as well as reducing the time and cost for file transfers” (Moore 0016).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., (hereinafter Long), CN110650460 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Altman, US20210116907.
Claim 4. Long discloses all the limitation of Claim 1, Long does not explicitly teach: a compression determination module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to determine a level of compression of a data item based on the priority value of the data item or on characteristics of the future connectivity modules, and to send instructions to the vehicle application of the first vehicle instructing the first vehicle to compress a data item before transmitting it.
Altman, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
a compression determination module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to determine a level of compression of a data item based on the priority value of the data item or on characteristics of the future connectivity modules, and to send instructions to the vehicle application of the first vehicle instructing the first vehicle to compress a data item before transmitting it (Altman, 0035 – 0037, “a vehicular Communications Properties Estimator 141 may operate to continuously or periodically estimate or re - calculate the current or momentary properties of communications channels that are available to the primary vehicle 110 ( e.g. , bandwidth , throughput , good put , error rate , packet error rate , rate of dropped or missing packets , rate of erroneous packets , latency , delay , lag time , or other data and performance related parameters or the like”, “a vehicular Dynamic Encoder / Modifier 143 may optionally operate to encode or transcode or re - encode or convert the data - segments or data - portions that are intended for transmission , from a first format or data structure to a second format or data - structure , and particularly to a reduced - size format or a compressed format”).
Long and Altman both teach data transfer on mobile/moving devices and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the dynamic compression/encoding method of Altman’s teaching in the system/algorithm of Long to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to add “reliability and availability … in communications” (Altman 0040) and “to save time and / or to reduce latency” (Altman 0051).
Claim 5. Long discloses all the limitation of Claim 1, Long does not explicitly teach: a driving behaviour module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to determine modifications of a driving behaviour of the first vehicle based on the first set of future connectivity opportunities, and to send instructions on the modifications to the vehicle application of the first vehicle.
Altman, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
a driving behaviour module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to determine modifications of a driving behaviour of the first vehicle based on the first set of future connectivity opportunities, and to send instructions on the modifications to the vehicle application of the first vehicle (Altman, 0063 – 0073, “Each of these connections , or modems , may be experiencing different performance at any point in time , for example in terms of available uplink bandwidth , uplink latency , uplink error rate , jittery behavior of any of them , downlink performances , bandwidth , good put , throughput , general error late , or others”, “tele - operator may receive the data at a second ( e.g. , smaller ) latency and / or at a second ( e.g. , smaller ) error rate … a remote AI module may take over from the human tele - operator , or vice versa , or the two may interact wherein the remote AI advises the teleoperator about the alternatives or recommends options to it , or the human operator alleviates potential risks or limitations so that the remote or in - vehicle AI unit ( s ) can then continue with the route planning alternatives or recommendation or actual driving”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the dynamic compression/encoding method of Altman’s teaching in the system/algorithm of Long to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to control/achieve a level of confidence (Altman 0164).
Claim 12. Long discloses all the limitation of Claim 1, Long does not explicitly teach: the sending of the instructions to the vehicle application of the first vehicle comprises sending instructions configured to instruct a vehicle with autonomous capabilities, or sending instructions configured to be presented to a remote operator or driver of a vehicle.
Altman, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
the sending of the instructions to the vehicle application of the first vehicle comprises sending instructions configured to instruct a vehicle with autonomous capabilities, or sending instructions configured to be presented to a remote operator or driver of a vehicle (Altman, 0003, “embodiments of the present invention include devices, systems, and methods of autonomous driving and tele-operated vehicles”).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 4.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., (hereinafter Long), CN110650460 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rakshit et al., (hereinafter Rakshit), US20200168086.
Claim 6. Long discloses all the limitation of Claim 1, Long does not explicitly teach: a routing module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to determine modifications of a route of the first vehicle based on the first set of future connectivity opportunities, and to send instructions on the modifications to the vehicle application of the first vehicle or to a route planning module.
Rakshit, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
a routing module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to determine modifications of a route of the first vehicle based on the first set of future connectivity opportunities, and to send instructions on the modifications to the vehicle application of the first vehicle or to a route planning module (Rakshit, Fig. 5 & 0058 – 0064, “Computing system 560 may select a different route in response to determining that route 540A has … a predicted network outage area, and/or not enough other vehicles on road 530B to create a V2V network to communicate with vehicle 500. Computing system 560 may instruct vehicle 500 to switch to a different route when vehicle 500 is already in area 520”; The combination of Long and Rakshit renders obviousness of the cited limitation.).
Long and Rakshit both teach data communication on mobile devices and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include rerouting technique of Rakshit’s teaching in the system/algorithm of Long to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to maintain the “monitor and control the operation of an autonomous vehicle” (Rakshit, 0017).
Claim 7. Long discloses all the limitation of Claim 1, Long does not explicitly teach: a characteristic prediction module connected with the memory and the processor, wherein the first set of connectivity opportunities is based on output options from the characteristic prediction module determined for a route and/or in the area of the first vehicle.
Rakshit, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
a characteristic prediction module connected with the memory and the processor, wherein the first set of connectivity opportunities is based on output options from the characteristic prediction module determined for a route and/or in the area of the first vehicle (refer to the mapping in Claim 6 & Rakshit, fig. 5, different routes are options having different connectivity characteristic. The connectivity opportunities are based on these options).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 6.
Claim 13. Long discloses all the limitation of Claim 1, Long does not explicitly teach: store information of a second set of data items stored in a second vehicle, the data items of the second set being each assigned a respective priority value, to obtain, for the second vehicle, a second set of future connectivity opportunities and to send instructions to a vehicle application of the second vehicle to transmit at least one from among the second set of data items during at least one from among the second set of future connectivity opportunities.
Rakshit, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
store information of a second set of data items stored in a second vehicle, the data items of the second set being each assigned a respective priority value, to obtain, for the second vehicle, a second set of future connectivity opportunities and to send instructions to a vehicle application of the second vehicle to transmit at least one from among the second set of data items during at least one from among the second set of future connectivity opportunities (Rakshit, 0015, “when a cellular communication network (e.g., a first communication network) is not available to a first vehicle”, “central management system can transmit instructions to a second vehicle that still has cellular service and that is approaching the first vehicle”; 0054, “central management system 150 may be able to predict or determine the existence and location of area 320”; Rakshit discloses a central computing system that predicts the network conditions during the traveling of a first vehicles and the connection opportunities between the first vehicle and a second vehicle; store data on secondary vehicles and instruct second vehicle to transmit the data at the predicted opportunity to the first vehicle. The combination of Long and Rakshit renders obviousness of the cited limitation).
Long and Rakshit both teach data communication on mobile devices and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include centrally managed data transmission technique of Rakshit’s teaching in the system/algorithm of Long to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification as “a fallback option when a cellular communication network (e.g., a first communication network) is not available to a first vehicle” (Rakshit 0015).
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al., (hereinafter Long), CN110650460 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lerner et al., (hereinafter Lerner), US20230096556.
Claim 8. Long teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Long discloses all the limitation of Claim 1, Long further teach: receive route information of at least one additional vehicle (translation page 3, “the vehicle node in the driving process of the driving route state information of the neighbour node periodically broadcast itself and in a future period of time according to the E1, E2, E3 and E4 for different conditions, vehicle node estimated link duration between the neighbour node of itself”; E1 – E4 are different route information of another vehicle)
Long does not explicitly teach:
a nominal data transmission need prediction module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to … predict and output a nominal data transmission need of the at least one additional vehicle at one or more of the times and locations corresponding to the first set of connectivity opportunities, wherein obtaining the first set of connectivity opportunities is based on the output from the nominal data transmission need prediction module.
Lerner, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
a nominal data transmission need prediction module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to … predict and output a nominal data transmission need of the at least one additional vehicle at one or more of the times and locations corresponding to the first set of connectivity opportunities, wherein obtaining the first set of connectivity opportunities is based on the output from the nominal data transmission need prediction module (Lerner, 0069 – 0072, “vehicle 100 has data that needs to be uploaded, but is not traveling a route projected to bring it within range of an access point within a certain period of time. At the same time, vehicle 100 may encounter vehicle 120, which … may be projected to be near to an access point within less than the period of time. That is, regardless of how close or far vehicle 100 is from an access point, vehicle 120 may be able to complete the upload sooner. Even if vehicle 120 has its own data to transfer, vehicle 100 may have higher priority data or may simply not be expected to contact an access point for a long time”, “Under the predicate of the vehicle 120 being projected to complete the transfer faster, in this example, vehicle 100 will transfer relevant information to vehicle 120”; i.e., vehicle 120 may receive data of vehicle 100 for storing and transmit to later connectivity opportunities while vehicle 120 has its own data for transmission. 0047, “vehicle … determining the bandwidth available and adjusting any transfer plans accordingly.”; i.e., the calculation/prediction of bandwidth of the connectivity opportunities of the data of vehicle 120 is also based on the consideration of the bandwidth (nominal data transmission need) for the data of vehicle 100
Long and Lerner both teach data transmission/communication in moving vehicles and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the bandwidth consideration of Lerner’s teaching in the system/algorithm of Long to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to better planning/prioritizing of file transfer (Lerner, 0056,)
Claim 9. Long teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Long further teach: a nominal data transmission need receiving module connected with the memory and the processor, configured to receive route information of at least one additional vehicle and receive and output a nominal data transmission need of the at least one additional vehicle at one or more of the times and locations corresponding to the first set of connectivity opportunities (Fig. 5 & translation page 4, “vehicle and intermediate node of the communication state”; translation page 5, “vehicle node in the driving process of the driving route state information of the neighbour node periodically broadcast itself and in a future period of time, so that each node can be estimated from the travel route of the same neighbor node, according to E1, E2. E3 and E4 four different kinds of condition”; i.e., vehicle may receive the broadcasted route information of other vehicle and act as intermediate node for the transmission of data (data transmission need of the at least one additional vehicle)
Long does not explicitly teach:
wherein obtaining the first set of connectivity opportunities is based on the output from the nominal data transmission need receiving module.
Lerner, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
wherein obtaining the first set of connectivity opportunities is based on the output from the nominal data transmission need receiving module (Lerner, Fig. 5 & 0069 – 0072, “vehicle 100 has data that needs to be uploaded, but is not traveling a route projected to bring it within range of an access point within a certain period of time. At the same time, vehicle 100 may encounter vehicle 120, which … may be projected to be near to an access point within less than the period of time. That is, regardless of how close or far vehicle 100 is from an access point, vehicle 120 may be able to complete the upload sooner. Even if vehicle 120 has its own data to transfer, vehicle 100 may have higher priority data or may simply not be expected to contact an access point for a long time”; i.e., vehicle 120 may receive request from vehicle 100 for storing and transmitting data of vehicle 100 while vehicle 120 has its own data for transmission. 0047, “vehicle … determining the bandwidth available and adjusting any transfer plans accordingly.”; i.e., the calculation of bandwidth of the connectivity opportunities of vehicle 120 for its own data including the consideration of the bandwidth used/needed for the data of vehicle 100).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Chen, EP3135019, which teaches data transmission in limited and fluctuating communication network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, HITESH PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/6/26