DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed on July 7th 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-20 in the reply filed on 7/7/26 is acknowledged.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the words “operable to” should be followed by a colon since they appear to precede a list having several steps. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 613 (Fig. 6). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2021/0021530 A1 in view of Gogna et al. US 11,042,153 B2
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses:
a vehicle comprising: a chassis (vehicle - abstract, paragraph 14, Fig. 1);
a modem arrangement carried on the chassis (modem – paragraph 2), the modem arrangement being configured to enable the vehicle to communicate with a network (connect to network via modem – paragraph 22, Figs. 1-2),
at least a first system carried on the chassis (on-board computing platform – paragraphs 15-16, Fig. 1); and
a traffic management arrangement carried on the chassis (computing platform manages traffic – Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 16-19 and 24), the traffic management arrangement including logic encoded in one or more tangible non-transitory, computer-readable media for execution and when executed operable to
obtain at least a first packet from the first system (network uses data packets – abstract, paragraphs 3-5),
classify the first packet to create a first classified packet (packet has QoS identifier – paragraph 3, 23),
identify a first quality of service (QoS) tier of a plurality of QoS tiers for the first classified packet (different applications have different QoS requirements – paragraph 2; paragraph 23 teaches at least 3 QoS tiers “normal”, “higher” and “real-time” priority; paragraph 24 provides examples of which applications use which QoS tier),
provide the first classified packet with information that identifies the first QoS tier (QoS identifier/requirement – abstract, paragraphs 3-5); and
provide the first classified packet to the modem arrangement for transmission to the network based on the first QoS tier (transmit based on QoS – Figs. 2, 4 , paragraphs 24 and 26-28.
Kim does not explicitly disclose the modem arrangement including a plurality of modems but this is taught by Gogna as a vehicle can include multiple modems (col. 1 ln. 62 and col. 6 ln. 3-10, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Kim to have multiple modems as taught by Gogna for the purpose of communication. Gogna teaches that multiple modems allow a vehicle to connect to different networks (see col. 1 ln. 62-67), this allows the vehicle to use different technologies for communication (see col. 14 ln. 12-27).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the vehicle including a second system, obtain a second packet from the second system; classify the second packet to create a second classified packet; identify a second QoS tier of the plurality of QoS tiers for the second classified packet; and provide the second classified packet with information that identifies the second QoS tier (repeat above method for one of the other applications – see Figs. 1-2, 4 and paragraphs 3-5, 14-15, 23-24).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses provide the second classified packet to the modem arrangement based on the second QoS tier, wherein the logic operable to provide the first classified packet to the modem arrangement based on the first QoS tier is operable to provide the first classified packet to the modem arrangement after providing the second classified packet to the modem arrangement when the second QoS tier has a higher priority for transmission than the first QoS tier, and wherein the logic operable to provide the first classified packet to the modem arrangement based on the first QoS tier is operable to provide the first classified packet to the modem arrangement before providing the second classified packet to the modem arrangement when the first QoS tier has the higher priority for transmission than the second QoS tier (these features merely recite the concept of priority, e.g. provide a packet before another packet when it has higher priority; Kim teaches providing packets to modem based on QoS tiers and transmitting packets based on QoS – see Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 3-5, 22-28).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses a first modem … includes a plurality of traffic interfaces, the plurality of traffic interfaces including a first tier traffic interface and a second tier traffic interface, and wherein the logic is operable to provide the first classified packet to the modem arrangement is further operable to provide the first classified packet to the first tier traffic interface of the first modem (provide data packet to particular interface/AP based on QoS tier as explained above – see Figs. 2 and 4, paragraphs 3-5, 22-24, and 27-28).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses provide the second classified packet to the second tier traffic interface of the first modem (route packet based on QoS, second tier “higher” goes to second traffic interface connected to respective APN-2 for respective QoS – Figs. 2, 4 and paragraphs 3-5, 22-24 and 27-28).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Gogna in view of Lei et al. US 2020/0008083.
Regarding claim 11, Kim does not explicitly disclose determine a state of the vehicle. But this is taught by Gogna (determine vehicle status – col. 5 ln. 40-41, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to determine vehicle status. One of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand that better informed decisions can be made when state/status information is known.
The combination of Kim and Gogan does not explicitly disclose determine whether to prioritize the first QoS tier or the second QoS tier for transmission based on the state of the vehicle. But this is taught by Lei as prioritizing a first or second network of a vehicle based on the state of the vehicle (abstract, Figs. 2-3, paragraphs 4-5, 34-35, 40-41). Lei also discloses that a vehicle is equipped with multiple modems (paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Gogna with the priority scheme taught by Lei. Lei suggests that depending on vehicle state, different networks/communications should have different priority, this provides dynamic and adaptive repurposing of resources which improves utility and functionality (see paragraphs 33-35).
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Gogna in view of Eichert et al. US 6,393,474 B1.
Regarding claim 16, it is also directed to a vehicle similar to claim 8. The corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons. Kim also discloses a plurality of systems (the computing platform of the vehicle includes a plurality of systems – see Fig. 1 item 104, paragraphs 15-22), a packet intelligence and distribution arrangement to obtain first packet of data and identify contents of the first packet to enable the first packet to be prioritized for distribution by the modem (obtain packet and transmit based on packet QoS identifier/requirement associated with application – Figs. 2, 4, paragraphs 24, 28), a routing rule arrangement and a traffic control policy arrangement … determine how the first packet of data is to be provided to the modem arrangement for distribution (route/transmit data based on QoS/ToS rules – Figs. 1-4).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the modem arrangement including a plurality of modems but this is taught by Gogna as a vehicle can include multiple modems (col. 1 ln. 62 and col. 6 ln. 3-10, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Kim to have multiple modems as taught by Gogna for the purpose of communication. Gogna teaches that multiple modems allow a vehicle to connect to different networks (see col. 1 ln. 62-67), this allows the vehicle to use different technologies for communication (see col. 14 ln. 12-27).
Kim does not explicitly disclose a real-time state arrangement to identify a state of the vehicle but this is also taught by Gogna (determine vehicle status – col. 5 ln. 40-41, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to determine vehicle status. One of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand that better informed decisions can be made when state/status information is known.
The combination of Kim and Gogna does not explicitly disclose a routing rule arrangement to update at least one routing rule .. based on state, and a traffic control policy arrangement to update at least one traffic control policy … based on state. However, this is well-known in the art and explicitly taught by Eichert (dynamic policy enforcement for network devices updates policies in response to state information and including how traffic is routed – abstract, col. 2 ln. 1-46).
As opposed to claim 11 which recites deciding to prioritize a first or second QoS tier based on the vehicle state, claim 16 broadly recites updating “rules and polices” based on vehicle state information. The dynamic configuration of network routing in response to state information of network devices (i.e. using link state information) is extremely well-known in the art. The vehicle in question is a network device because it is transmitting and receiving data packets over a network (e.g. the vehicle is an “Internet of Things” device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Gogna with the dynamic policy taught by Eichert for the purpose of responding to changes in device state/status. This allows the network to be flexible and respond to failures, congestion, etc. and thereby improve system operation and user experience.
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses the packet intelligence and distribution arrangement includes a classification arrangement, the classification arrangement being configured to identify a first QoS tier of a plurality of QoS tiers for the first packet of data (identify QoS packets using QoS identifier/requirement – paragraphs 3-5, Figs. 1-2 show “packet intelligence” for transmitting data and at least three QoS tiers – paragraphs 23-24).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses the first modem including a plurality of traffic interfaces, the plurality of traffic interfaces including a first traffic interface associated with the first QoS tier (modem has plurality of traffic interfaces to different APNs for respective QoS tiers – Fig. 2).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the plurality of modems include at least a first and second modem but this is taught by Gogna as discussed above (see Fig. 1 items 112, 114). The motivation to combine is the same.
Regarding claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to the vehicle of claim 16; thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Gogna in view of Eichert and in further view of Pedersen et al. US 2020/0004239 A1.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kim, Gogna and Eichert does not explicitly disclose the state is a supervisory state of the vehicle, the supervisory state being one selected from a group including unsupervised and supervised, wherein the supervised state is when the vehicle is monitored by a teleoperations system. But this is taught by Pedersen as monitoring an autonomous vehicle, thus it is in a supervised state (abstract, paragraph 3, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim, Gogna and Eichert to have the vehicle state being a supervised state as taught by Pedersen. Pedersen suggests this provides remote assistance when an autonomous vehicle has an issue (paragraph 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 12-13 recite subject matter that may be partially known individually (e.g. determine whether vehicle is in a supervisory control state – see pertinent art), but when it is considered as a whole with all the limitations from the intervening claims, the combined subject matter distinguishes over the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. US 2022/0278933 A1 discloses comparing vehicle state to a threshold to determine the priority of data packets (paragraph 48).
Adapa et al. US 2024/0364592 A1 discloses generating network policy/rules in response to network device state information (paragraphs 96-98).
Ogawa US 2023/0115290 A1 discloses a vehicle network (abstract) that sets packet priority depending on the situation of the vehicle (paragraph 95).
Trim et al. US 2022/0046657 A1 discloses adjusting network traffic channels in a vehicle in response to vehicle status (paragraphs 5, 13-14 and Fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights