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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b).
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior anticipation rejection over MacNeille are acknowledged. In view of the amendment to claim 1, the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 over MacNeille alone is withdrawn. However the arguments are not persuasive against the presently applied obviousness rejection over MacNeille in view of Sayin.
MacNeille teaches a token-based vehicle to vehicle CMMP system in which a cooperative vehicle tracks CMMP tokens, requests preferential lane access using tokens, and grants preferential lane access in exchange for tokens. Sayin teaches a vehicle reservation application in which a user inputs (para 0051), via an in-vehicle display/user interface, an urgency level selected from a plurality of levels (para 0079- scale of 1-10), where the selected urgency level is associated with time token debit or credit transactions and priority traffic treatment (para 0104, 0111 and 0112). Accordingly, Sayin teaches or suggests acquiring a user-selected token-related mode from among a plurality of modes via a host-vehicle input device. Therefore, under BRI, Sayin’s urgency level is reasonably considered a token related mode because the selected urgency setting determines token debit/credit and priority treatment.
It would have been obvious to incorporate Sayin’s user interface-based selection of token related priority levels into MacNeille’s CMMP token based cooperative vehicle system to permit the driver to select the desired token-related priority behavior and associated token use, thereby improving user control of token-based traffic coordination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites that “the executable instructions further cause the control unit to assess a penalty to the user of the vehicle when an action is taken that does not contribute to safe driving.” The specification (see applicant’s PG Pub para 0045) only states that “penalty may be given to the user of the vehicle 2 when an action is taken that does not contribute to safe driving or to fostering a traffic culture” but does not describe a criteria for determining what actions do not contribute to safe driving, how the control unit determines that such an action has occurred, or how the control unit assesses the penalty? Therefore, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ability to execute instructions for assessing a penalty under the broadly recited/claimed condition.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “assess a penalty to the user of the vehicle when an action is taken that does not contribute to safe driving.” The phrase “does not contribute to safe driving” is indefinite because the claim does not provide objective boundaries for determining which actions qualify as actions that do not contribute to safe driving, and the determination may vary depending on subjective judgment or traffic context. The specification (see applicant’s PG Pub para 0045) generically states that “penalty may be given to the user of the vehicle 2 when an action is taken that does not contribute to safe driving or to fostering a traffic culture” but does not define the phrase or provide measurable criteria, thresholds, or examples sufficient to inform the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacNeille (US 2018/0082590) in view of Sayin et al (2019/0287396).
Regarding claim 1, MacNeille teaches a control device provided in a host vehicle (elements 100, and 108), comprising: a control unit (element 608), a communication unit (element 106), and a storage unit (element 610), storing executable instructions that cause the control unit to acquire a token-related mode related to a token exchange (para 0039-0041 and 0050- MacNeille CMMP token based consumer transaction system);
MacNeille further teaches setting the host vehicle to the selected token-related mode (para 0022 and 0027, setting or operating the cooperative vehicle in a CMMP token related operational state, such as requesting preferential lane access as a consumer vehicle or granting/facilitating preferential lane access as a merchant vehicle in exchange for CMMP tokens);
communicate with another a second vehicle or another device via the communication unit (para 0025-0027, DSRC module 106 establishes connections between cooperative vehicles, infrastructure based modules and mobile device based modules, and that the CACC module 108 coordinates via the DSRC module with other cooperative vehicles);
and exchanging a token between the host vehicle and the second vehicle or the other device according to the token related mode (0022 and 0027, teaches CMMP token exchange between consumer vehicles and merchant vehicles according to the CMMP operation).
MacNeille fails to specifically disclose selecting by the user of the host vehicle and the token related mode being selected from among a plurality of token-related modes input by the user via an input device of the host vehicle.
However, Sayin teaches that the reservation application receives driver data from the user, including an urgency level of the journey (Sayin 0051, the reservation application 199A receives driver data 159 from the user, such as a journey the first vehicle 121 is travelling, an urgency level of the journey, and a number of travelers in the first vehicle 121). Sayin further teaches that the driver or passenger provides the urgency level through the vehicle user interface (para 0071, 0079 and 0089).
Sayin also teaches the token-related mode being selected from among a plurality of token-related modes (para 0079- the user interface may also prompt the user to provide… an urgency associated with the journey e.g., where the urgency is rated on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most urgent).
Sayin further teaches that user selected urgency levels affect time-token debit/credit transactions and priority treatment. For example, high urgency can result in token deduction, while low urgency can result in earning tokens (para 0104 and 0111). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Sayin’s urgency levels constitute token-related modes because they are user-selected vehicle priority states related to time-token transactions. Saying further teaches input by the user via an input device of the host vehicle (Sayin display 250 may receive user input regarding a journey to be take by the first vehicle 121, an urgency level for the journey, and a number of travelers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide to modify MacNeille’s CMMP token-based cooperative vehicle to include Sayin’s user interface for selecting among a plurality of token-related priority/urgency modes, in order to improve user control and traffic-priority signaling.
Regarding claim 2, MacNeille teaches a first mode indicating a request to be preferentially given way on condition of transmitting a token to the second vehicle (0022, CMMP tokens are used to validate and authorize a transaction in which, at consumer vehicle request, the merchant vehicles either occupy slower lanes of traffic themselves, or allow the consumer vehicle to merge into their own lane and pass as necessary).
Note- claim is written in the alternative requiring only one of four conditions be met.
Regarding claim 3, MacNeille as modified by Sayin disclose determining a number of tokens possessed by the host vehicle (MacNeille 0027, tracking CMMP tokens available to the cooperative vehicle 100); and restrict selectability of one or more token-related modes from among the plurality of token related modes, according to the number of tokens possessed (Sayin 0112, drivers with zero or negative time-token balances can only request the lowest urgency level). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide to modify MacNeille’s CMMP token tracking system to restrict selectable token related priority modes based on token balance, as taught by Sayin, in order to prevent a vehicle from requesting token-based preferential access without sufficient tokens and to enforce fair use of token based traffic privileges.
Regarding claim 4, MacNeille as modified by Sayin disclose the control unit of the host vehicle communicates with the second vehicle or the other device directly, or indirectly via a roadside device or an information processing device (MacNeille 0025 and 0026, DSRC module 106 establishes connections between vehicles, DSRC systems may be installed along roadsides as roadside systems). Furthermore, Sayin teaches communications via ab RSU and time token server (Sayin 0021-0024 and 0036-0040).
Regarding claim 5, MacNeille as modified by Sayin disclose the input device is one or more of a microphone, a physical key, a capacitive key, a pointing device, a touch screen integrally provided with a display (Sayin 0071, display device 250).
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(b) above), MacNeille as modified with Sayin above disclose causing the control unit to assess a penalty to the user of the vehicle when an action is taken that does not contribute to safe driving. MacNeille 0018 and 0022 teaches that cooperative vehicle driving behavior is monitored, recorded, and evaluated in a collective manner, and that coordinated traffic flow depends on moving vehicles with coordinated headway and speed consistent with safe driving. MacNeille does not expressly teach assessing a penalty to the user of the vehicle when an action is taken that does not contribute to safe driving.
However, Sayin 0059, 0104 and 0112 discloses assessing token based consequences to a vehicle user in a vehicle traffic management system. In particular, Sayin teaches that drivers may misreport information to rig operation of the roadside unit in their favor, and that the system deducts from a time token balance when the corresponding vehicle specifies a high urgency level and receives priority, thereby ensuring drivers will not misreport urgency levels for selfish reasons because it will cost them time tokens. Sayin further teaches that drivers with zero or negative time-token balances can only request the lowest urgency level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have been motivated to incorporate Sayin’s token based penalty/restriction mechanism into MacNeille’s CMMP system to discourage behavior that undermines cooperative and safe traffic flow.
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 EDAN ORGAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7884. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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.
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.
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights